Keimåelia 'ekklåesiastika, The historical and miscellaneous tracts of the Reverend and learned Peter Heylyn, D.D. now collected into one volume ... : and an account of the life of the author, never before published : with an exact table to the whole.

THE HISTORY OF EPISCOPACY.

The First PART.

From the first Institution of it by our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, until the death of St. John the Apostle.

CHAP. I. The Christian Church first founded by our Lord and Saviour, in an Imparity of Ministers.

• 1. The several Offices of Christ our Saviour in the Administration of his Church.
• 2. The aggregation of Disciples to him.
• 3. The calling of the Apostles, and why twelve in number.
• 4. Of the Name and Office of an Apostle.
• 5. What things were specially required unto the making of an Apostle.
• 6. All the Apostles equal amongst them∣selves.
• 7. The calling and appointing of the Seventy Disciples.
• 8. A reconciliation of some different opinions about the number.
• 9. The twelve Apostles superiour to the Se∣venty by our Saviours Ordinance.
• 10. What kind of superiority it was that Christ prohibited his Apostles.
• 11. The several Powers and preheminences given to the Apostles by our Saviour Christ.
• 12. That the Apostles were made Bishops by our Lord and Saviour, averred by the ancient Fathers.
• 13. And by the Text of holy Scripture.

OF all the Types in holy Scripture, [unspec I] I find not any that did so fully represent the nature of our Saviours Kingdom, as those of David, Moses, and Melchizedech. David a Shepherd,* 1.1 and a King, Moses a Legislator, and a Prince; Melchisedech both King of Salem, and a Priest also of the living God, as that Text hath stiled him. Each of these was a type of our Saviour Christ, according to his Regal Office; he being like Melchise∣dech,* 1.2 a King of Peace and Righteousness; leading his people, as did Moses, out of the darkness and Idolatries of Egypt, to the land of Canaan:* 1.3 and conquering like David all those Enemies which before held them in subjection. This Office, as it is supreme, so it is perpetual. That God who tells us in the Psalms, that he had set his King on Zion, on his holy mountain:* 1.4 hath also told us by his Angel, that he should reign over the House of Jacob for ever, and of his Kingdom there should be no end. But if we look upon him in his Sacerdotal and Pastoral Offices: if we behold him as a Lawgiver to his Church and people: we find him not fore-signified in any one of these, but in all together.* 1.5 A Priest he was

after the order of Melchisedech;* 1.6 faithful to him that did appoint him, as also Moses was faithful in all his house; ordering, and disposing of the same, according to his will and pleasure. And as for the discharge of his Pastoral or Prophetical Office, God likeneth him to David,* 1.7 by his holy Prophet saying, I will set up one Shepheard over them, and he shall feed them, even my servant David, he shall feed them, and he shall be their shepheard. Which Offices, although subordinate to the Regal power, are per∣petual also. He was not made a Priest for a time or season, but for ever. Tu es Sa∣cerdos in aeternum:* 1.8 Thou art a Priest for ever, said the Lord unto him. A Priest, who as he once appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself;* 1.9 so by that one offering hath he perfected for ever all them that are sanctified;* 1.10 and sitting down at the right hand of God,* 1.11 he ever liveth, and maketh intercession for them. Of the same perpetuity also are those other Offices of Christ our Saviour, before remembred. He had not been sidelis sicut Moses,* 1.12 faithful as Moses was in all his house: i. e. as Estius well expounds it, in administratione populi sibi credita, in the well-ordering of the charge committed to him, had he not constituted a set Form of Government, and given the same unto his Church, as a Rule for ever. Nor had he faithfully discharged the part of David, had he looked only to his flock, whiles himself was present; and took no care for the continual feeding of the same, after he was returned to his heavenly glo∣ries. And therefore,* 1.13 when he ascended up on high he gave gifts to men, and gave some Apostles, and some Prophets, and some Evangelists, and some Pastors and Teachers; for the perfecting of the Saints, for the work of the Ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ; till we all come in the unity of faith, and of the knowledg of the son of God unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ.

He gave them then indeed, [unspec II] after his Ascension, when he ascended up on high, be∣cause he then did furnish them with those gifts and graces, wherewith they were en∣dued by the Holy Ghost, and thereby fitted for the execution of the trust commit∣ted to them by their Lord. For otherwise many of them had been given already; not only in the way of choice, and designation, but of commission and employ∣ment. Ite,* 1.14 & docete omnes Gentes, had been said before. It was not long after our Saviours baptism by John in Jordan, that some Disciples came unto him. That te∣stimony which came down from God the Father, when the Heavens were opened, and the Spirit of God descended on him like a Dove,* 1.15 was of it self sufficient to procure many followers. The evidence which was given by John the Baptist, added nought to this. And yet that evidence prevailed so far,* 1.16 that two of his Disciples, when they heard him speak, forsook their old Master, and went after Jesus. Nor did it satisfie them, that they had found the Christ, and had talked with him, but they impart the same unto others also. Thus Andrew brings in his own Brother Simon; Philip invites his friend Nathancel.* 1.17 One tells another the glad tidings, that they had found him of whom Moses in the Law, and all the Prophets did write: and all of them desire to be his Disciples.* 1.18 Afterward as his fame increased, so his followers multiplyed; and every Miracle that he wrought to confirm his Doctrine, did add unto the number of his Proselytes. So great his fame was, and so great the conflux of all sorts of people, that Johns Disciples presently complained, I know not whether with more truth or envy,* 1.19 Omnes ad eum veniunt, that all men came unto him, both to hear his preaching, and receive his baptism. And certainly it was no wonder that it should be so; that all men should resort to him, who was the way; or seek for him, who was the truth;* 1.20 or follow after him, who was the life. Lord (saith Saint Peter, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of life eternal.

The number of his followers being thus increased, [unspec III] he sends them not immediate∣ly to preach his Gospel. Two years he trained them up in the School of Piety, where he himself was both the Teacher and the Lesson, before he ventured them abroad upon that employment; And when he ventured them abroad, he neither sent them all together,* 1.21 nor with like authority. Twelve he selected from the rest, whom he named Apostles.* 1.22 And he ordained them saith Saint Mark, that they should be with him, and that he might send them forth to preach: first to be with him, as the constant witnesses of his words and works, and afterwards to preach and publish what they saw and heard.* 1.23 In which regard, Tertullian calls them not unfitly, Legatos à latere, sent from Christ to teach the Nations. Ex quibus (out of his Disciples) duodecem praecipuos lateri suo adlegerat, destinatos nationibus Magistros: as his own words are. The same Tertullian gives a reason, why Christ made choice of twelve Apostles, nei∣ther more nor less:* 1.24 viz. because there were twelve Fountains in Elim; twelve gems

or pretious Stones in the Brest-plate of Aaron; and twelve stones taken out of Jordan by the hand of Joshua, and by him put into the Ark of the Testament. And then he adds, totidem enim Apostoli praetendebantur, that the like number of Apostles was prefigured. Other conceits there are of the Ancient Fathers about this number: Bede, and Sedulius, resemble them to the twelve signs of the Zodiack: Justin Martyr to the twelve Bells in the high Priests garment: Tertullian before named,* 1.25 to the twelve Oxen that did uphold the molten Sea in the Temple of Solomon. Others have other fancies to the same effect; but whether Christ related unto any of them in this de∣signation, as it is no where to be found, so is it not material to the present pur∣pose. More near unto the point in my opinion, is that of Calvin, who thinks our Saviour in the choice of his twelve Disciples related to the twelve Patriarchs of the Tribes of Israel: to shew that as the Patriarchs were the root and seminary of the Tribes of Israel, so the Apostles were to be the Parents, or if you will,* 1.26 the Patriarchs of the Church of Christ, Non ergo frustra Dominus duodecim veluti Patriarchas consti∣tuens, Ecclesiae renunciationem testatus est. Which guess of his, though it come nearer to the matter than the other did; yet it falls short also of the true intention of our Lord and Saviour. For Christ, who was best able to assign the reason of his mind herein, hath told us, that he fitted his Apostles according to the number of the Tribes of Israel; that his Apostles in due time might become their Judges. For so himself declares it in his holy Gospel; Verily (saith he) I say unto you,* 1.27 that ye which have followed me in the regeneration, when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye shall also sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel,* 1.28 i. e. as Hierom doth expound it, Quia credentibus vobis, illi credere noluerunt; by reason of their ob∣stinacy and unbelief, not giving credit to that Gospel the Apostles preached. Twelve then our Saviour pleased to chuse, whom he named Apostles, and they themselves conceived this number not to want its weight: and therefore made it their first care to fill up their number, and surrogate some other in the place of Judas. Saint Peter very well declared the necessity of it, when he came in with his Oportet;* 1.29 Oportet ergo ex his viris, &c. Wherefore of these men that have companied with us all the time, that the Lord Jesus went in and out amongst us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection. So excellently true is that of Austin, Adeo numerus ille sacratus est,* 1.30 ut in locum unius qui exciderat, non posset nisi alter nominari.

As for the name, quos & Apostolos nominavit, as Saint Luke informs us: [unspec IV] Baronius thinks it was not of our Saviours own divising,* 1.31 but by him borrowed of the high Priests of the Jewish Nation, who had a special kind of Ministers, whom they cal∣led Apostles, imployed by them for the instruction of the Priests,* 1.32 the visiting of the several Synagogues, the rectifying of ill manners, and the reforming of those publick Ministers, who did not live according to the prescript of the Law. Whether that it were so or not, or that the Cardinal be not mistaken in the meaning of the Author whom he citeth; I will not meddle for the present: though I conceive by looking on the place in Epiphanius, that the succeeding Patriarchs of the Jewish Nati∣on, did rather take this name from Christs Apostles, than he from theirs. But for the word as now we use it, it is meerly Greek, signifying in its natural and ori∣ginal sense a Messenger, a Legate, an Embassadour; from whom, to whomsoever sent: after appropriated and applyed by the Evangelists to signifie those twelve, whom our Saviour chose, and called his Apostles, as by way of excellence: yet so that many of those men who saw our Saviour in the flesh, and did preach the Gospel, are sometimes honoured with that name. Quod autem exceptis duodecim quidam vo∣cantur Apostoli, illud in causa est, omnes qui Dominum viderunt, & eum postea praedica∣runt, fuisse Apostolos nominatos: as Saint Hierom notes it. By which we see, that those two things did principally concur unto the making of an Apostle, viz. to have been conversant with our Saviour Christ, and to preach his Word: which being most exactly verified in those twelve Disciples, whom he selected for that purpose; it was most fit that they should chiefly have the honour of so high a Title. But these, although they were two special marks of an Apostle; yet they were not all. Others had seen our Saviour in the flesh, and preached his Gospe, which notwith∣standing never durst assume that Title: Ignatius, who affirms it of himself,* 1.33 that he had seen the Lord Jesus, doth yet disclaim the power and priviledg of an Apostle, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, saith he in his Epistle to the Romans. So that be∣sides their seeing of our Saviour in the flesh, and preaching of those things which themselves had seen; the Twelve had a preheminence above the rest of the Disci∣ples,

in those three particulars: first, in their nearness of access unto him when he was alive: Secondly, in the latitude of their commission, when he was to leave them: And thirdly, in the height of their authority after his departure.

For first, [unspec V] the twelve Apostles, and no others were the continual, constant, and do∣mestical Auditors of all his Sermons; the diligent beholders and observers of all his Miracles. With them did he discourse familiarly, propounding questions, answer∣ing their demands, and satifying all their scruples. The Twelve, and none but they, were present with him, when he did institute his holy Supper: and they alone parti∣cipated of those Prayers and Promises which he made to them from himself, or for them to his heavenly Father. Many there were of his retinue, of his Court not few: the Twelve were only of his Council; and of those too, some more especially ad∣mitted to his privacies, and of his Cabinet-council; (as it were) than others; whereof see Matth. 17.1. Mark 14.33. Luke 8.51. And on this ground doth Clemens tell us,* 1.34 that Christ imparted many things unto these three after his Ascen∣sion, which they communicated 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, unto the rest of the Apostles: the rest of the Apostles to the 70. As they were nearer in access, so were they fur∣nished with a more liberal Commission,* 1.35 when he was to leave them. Ite in uni∣versum mundum. He said unto them, Go into all the world, and preach the Gospel to every creature. No such commission granted to any others, who had their several precincts and bounds, a limited Commission when it was at best. To the Eleven (for unto them alone did he give that charge) the whole World went but for a Diocess.* 1.36 For this cause Chrysostom doth honour them with the stile of Princes, and Princes of a great command over all the Universe. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. The Apostles were ordained Princes by the hand of God: Princes which have not only under them some Towns, and Nations, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, but such unto whose care the whole World was trusted. So far that Father. And if we doubt that their authority fell short in any thing of their Commission: the same good Father in the same place, will inform us otherwise. For making a comparison between Spiritual and Civil Dignities,* 1.37 he calleth the Office of an Apostle, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a spiritual Con∣sulship, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the most spiritual of all Powers or Governments; and finally, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: the head, the root, nay the foundation of all spiritual Dignities of what sort soever. Doubtless the Father had good reason for so high an Eulogie. When Christ affirmed, Sicut misit me Pater,* 1.38 that as his Father sent him, so sent he them: He said enough to inti∣mate that supreme authority which he had given them in the Church, whether it were in preaching of the Gospel, in founding Churches, constituting, and ordaining Pastors, or whatsoever else was necessary for the advancement of his Kingdom. For by these words, as Cyril hath right well observed, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, he did ordain them for to be Guides and Teach∣ers unto all the World,* 1.39 and the dispensers of his holy Mysteries, commanding them not only to enlighten the land of Jewrie, but all the people of the Universe: as also giving them to understand that it was their duty, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to call the sinners to repentance, to heal all those that were afflicted, either in body or in soul, in the dispensing of Gods blessings; not to follow their own will, but his that sent them: and in a word, as much as in them was, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to save the World by wholsom dictrines, for to that pur∣pose was he sent by his Heavenly Father. And so we are to understand Saint Chry∣sostom, when he tells us this,* 1.40 that Christ invested his Apostles with the like authority as he received from his Father. Calvin affirms as much or more upon those words of our Redeemer. Quare non abs re Christus cum Apostolis suis communicat, quam à Patre autoritatem acoeperat, &c. But this authority of theirs will be seen more clearly, when we behold it in the practice, and execution.

Five things then of necessity were to concur in the making or constituting of an Apostle, [unspec VI] truly and properly so called: first an immediate Call from Christ himself: secondly, an Autopsie, or Eye-witnessing of those things which they were afterwards to preach or publish of him: thirdly, their nearness of access: fourthly, the latitude of their Commission: fifthly, and finally, the eminence of their authority: Of these the first were common with them unto the rest of the Disciples; save that the calling of the Apostles to that charge, and function doth seem to be more solemn, and imme∣diate. But in the rest, which are indeed the special or specifical differences, they had

no co-partners. This made them every way superiour unto the rest of the Disciples, al∣though all equal in themselves. Though in the calling of those blessed Spirits to that great imployment, there was a prius and posterius; yet in regard of power and autho∣rity, there was neither Summum, nor Subalternum: And howsoever Peter be first named in that sacred Catalogue; yet this entitleth him to no more authority, above the rest of the Apostles, than Stephen might challenge in that regard above the residue of the Seven. Saint Cyprian did resolve this cause many hundreds since; assigning unto all the twelve a parity of power and honour.* 1.41 Hoc erant utique & caeteri Apostoli quod fuit Petrus, pari consortio praediti, & honoris & potestatis; sed exordium ab unitate proficiscitur. Where clearly there is nothing given to Peter, but a priority of Order; a primacy if you will, but no supremacy. Neither doth Barlaam give him more, though he inscribe his book, de Papae Principatu. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. The Apostles, all of them saith he,* 1.42 in matter which concern∣ed the Church, were of equal honour. If Peter had preheminence in any thing, it was that in their sacred meetings he first brake the business, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and peradventure also had the upper place in the assemblies of that goodly fellowship. But what need Cyprian, or Barlaam come in for evidence, when as we find this parity so clearly evidenced in holy Scripture? In the immediateness of their Cal∣ling, and their access unto our Lord and Saviour, they were all alike. He that called Peter from his Nets, called also Matthew from the receit of custom. If only Peter, and the sons of Zebedee were taken with him to Mount Tabor,* 1.43 there to behold the glory of his Transfiguration;* 1.44 or chosen from amongst the rest to attend his person when he went out into the Garden of Gethsemane: this makes as much for the supremacy of the sons of Zebedee, as the son of Jona. Their mission, and commission were alike to all. He that said Ite & docete, Go into all the world and preach the Gospel to every creature, spake it indefinitely to every one; not unto Peter only, as the supreme Pastor; from whom the rest were to receive a delegated and confined authority. Neither had he so often been molested with that needless question, which of them should be greatest in their Masters Kingdom: had he before determined of it, and setled the supremacy in Saint Peters person. And as for those prerogatives, of Tibi dabo claves, Pasce oves meas: which being spoken unto Peter, may seem peculiarly to belong to him: the Fathers say, that nothing did hereby accrew to Peter, but what was common to the rest. Ecclesiae enim claves regni coelorum datae sunt. Et cum ei dicitur, ad omnes dicitur, Amas me?* 1.45 Pasce oves meas: as Saint Austin states it. But what need more be said to affirm this point, than that of our most blessed Saviour, when he encouraged them to perseverance with this heavenly Cordial, that they should sit upon twelve Thrones,* 1.46 judging the twelve Tribes of Israel? In which most gracious words of his, as the sitting of the Apostles shews au∣thority; their sitting upon Thrones, an eminence of power; their sitting to judg, a power and exercise of jurisdiction; and their sitting thus to judg the twelve Tribes of Israel, the universality and extent of their jurisdiction:* 1.47 so doth their sitting on twelve Thrones, singuli in sua sede, as Jansenius hath it, intimate an equality of juris∣diction, a parity in point of power.

But to proceed, Our Saviour finding that the harvest was great, [unspec VII] and the labourers as yet but few, and that his hour was now at hand, appointed other seventy also,* 1.48 and sent them two, and two before his face, into every City and place, whither he himself would come. [Verse 9] To them he gave authority to proclaim, and publish to the people, [Verse 17] that the Kingdom of God was come nigh unto them: giving them also power to heal the sick, and to cast out Devils, as he had formerly to his Apostles. So that there is no question to be made, but that they were intrusted with a part of this sacred Ministery, but whether in an equal rank we shall see anon. In the mean time if any question should be asked who these Seventy were and by what names called; we answer, nondum constat, that we can∣not tell. Eusebius as great a searcher into the monuments of Antiquity,* 1.49 as the Church ever bred, professeth plainly, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that he could ne∣ver meet with any list or catalogue of them. Some he had taken up on hear-say,* 1.50 as Barnabas, Sosthenes, Cephas, Matthias, after chose into the place of Judas, and Thaddeus. Papias mentioneth Aristion, as another of that number also. And Epiphanius adds to these, Stephen, and the residue of the Seven, Mark and Luke, two of the Evangelists, Justus, who stood in competition with Matthias, together with Apelles, Rufas, and Niger, whose names occur in holy Scripture. These are the most that there is any ground for, in antiquity. As for the Catalogue of their names and actions fathered on Dorotheus Bishop of Tyre: there is not any thing more false and fabulous: that Rhapsodist thrust∣ing

into that Catalogue, many who were converted by the Apostles, after Christs A∣scension. Insomuch as Estius worthily complaineth,* 1.51 eos fere omnes qui à Paulo in hoc capite nominantur, aut salutantes, aut salutandi, that all the men whose names occur in the 16. Chapter to the Romans, are by him thrust into the Catalogue of the Seventy Disciples: not to say any thing of those many other absurdities, which he hath noted in that Bedrol.

As for the number of Seventy, [unspec VIII] why our Redeemer pitched on that, there is not much dispute amongst the learned. Tertullian, who had fitted (as before we saw) the num∣ber of the Apostles,* 1.52 to the twelve fountains in Elim; doth also proportion the number of these Disciples, ad arbusta Palmarum, unto the number of the Palm-trees, that grew thereby. But this being only in the way of Allegory, we shall pass it over: only re∣serving the Application made by Hierom for a little longer. That which cometh near∣est the matter, and is agreed upon almost by all sorts of Writers, is that our Saviour in this choice, related to the Seventy Elders interessed in the government of the Tribes of Israel:* 1.53 mention of whom is made, Num. 11.16. Ezek. 8.11. Calvin amongst the rest gives this reason of it, In numero septuaginta videtur eum ordinem secutus esse, cui jam olim assueverat populus: and adds withal another note, which may well serve to reconcile the difference about this number, which is between the Greek and the Latin Copies. For the Greek Copies have it generally, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that he ap∣pointed other seventy also, as our English reads it. The Latin no less generally: Desig∣navit & alios septuaginta duos, that he sent out other seventy two: which reading doth occur in Hierom,* 1.54 Austin, and some others. I know indeed, Beza doth put an handsom slur on the Latin Copies, and thinks that some poor ignorant Scribes (Li∣brarii indocti, as he calls them) abbreviating the word discipulos into dlos: others as ignorant as they out of dlos read duos, and so found seventy two Disciples instead of seventy. But surely those renowned Fathers Hierom, and Austin, were no such Babies: not to say any thing of Beda, and the rest that followed. And therefore since it is agreed on, that these Disciples were proportioned to the number of the Elders of the Tribes of Israel: we must first find what was the number of those Elders, before we can agree upon the other. Now for the number of those Elders, the Scripture saith expresly, they were seventy two, as may appear by comparing the 25. verse of the 11. of Num∣bers, with the 26. in which we find that there were seventy Elders gathered about the Tabernacle, besides Eldad, and Medad in the Camp. For making up this number, as afterwards in the translation of the Bible, there were six chosen out of every Tribe, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,* 1.55 as Josephus hath it, which cometh to seventy two in all. But both the seventy two Elders, are generally called the Seventy; as the Translators of the Bible are called the Septuagint; both of them ad rotundationem numeri: even as the Ma∣gistrates in Rome were called Centumviri, though being three for every Tribe, they came unto an hundred and five in all.* 1.56 And this is that which Calvin hath observed in the present business: viz. that the Consistory of the Jewish Judges, to which the number of the Disciples is by him proportioned, consisted of no less than 72, though for the most part, ut fieri solet in talibus numeris, they are called the Seventy. So then to reconcile the Latin with the Greek Original, there were in all 72 Disciples, according to the truth of the calculation: and yet but seventy in account, according to the esti∣mation which was then in use. And therefore possibly the Church of England, the better to comply with both computations; though it have seventy in the new Tran∣slations, yet still retains the number of seventy two, in the Gospel appointed for Saint Lukes day in the book of Common-prayer confirmed by Parliament.

This being the number of the Disciples, [unspec IX] it will then fall out, that as there were six Elders, for every Tribes so here will be six Presbyters or Elders, for every one of the Apostles. For those which have compared the Church of Christ which was first planted by the Apostles, with that which was first founded by the Lord himself: resemble the Bishops in the Church to the twelve Apostles; the Presbyters, or Priests, unto the Seventy. Which parallel how well it holdeth, and whether it will hold, or not, we shall see hereafter. Mean while it cannot be denied, but that the Apostles were supe∣riour to these Seventy, both in place and power. The Fathers have so generally af∣firmed the same, that he must needs run cross unto all antiquity that makes question of it. The Council of Neocaesarea, which was convened some years before that of Nice,* 1.57 declareth that the Chorepiscopi, which were but Presbyters in fact, (though in Title Bishops) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,* 1.58 were instituted according to the pat∣tern of the Seventy. Saint Hierom, in his Tractate ad Fabiolam, speaking of the twelve

fountains of Elim, and the seventy Psalms that grew thereby, doth resolve it thus, Nec dubium quin de duodeeim Apostolis sermo sit, &c. It is not to be doubted, but that the Scripture speaketh here of the twelve Apostles, the waters issuing from whose fountains have moistned the barren driness of the whole World; and that the seventy Psalms that grew thereby, are the Teachers of the second rank or order: Luca testante duodecim fuisse Apo∣stolos, & septuaginta Discipulos minoris gradus: Saint Luke affirming that there were twelve Apostles, and seventy Disciples of a lower order, whom the Lord sent two and two before him. In this conceit, Saint Ambrose led the way before him, likening unto those Psalms the Seventy, qui secundo ab Apostolis gradu, who in a second rank from the Apo∣stles, were by the Lord sent forth for the salvation of mankind. Serm. 24. Damasus their co-temporary doth affirm as much, viz. non amplius quam duos ordines,* 1.59 that there were but two Orders amongst the Disciples of Christ, viz. that of the twelve Apostles, and the Seventy. Theophylact concurrs with Hierom in his conceit about the twelve Fountains, and the seventy Palm-trees: and then concludes,* 1.60 that howsoever they were chosen by Christ, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, yet were they inferiour to the twelve, and afterwards their followers and Scholars. Add hereunto the testimony and consent of Calvin, who giving the preheminence unto the Apostles,* 1.61 as the chief builders of the Church; adds in the next place the Evangelists, such as were Timothy and Titus, & fortassis etiam septuaginta Discipuli, quos secundo ab Apostolis loco Dominus designavit: and peradventure also the seventy Disciples, whom Christ appointed in the second place after his Apostles. Besides, S. Hierom giveth it for a Maxim, Qui provehitur,* 1.62 de minore ad majus provehitur, that he which is promoted, is promoted from a lower rank unto an higher. Matthias therefore, having been formerly of the Seventy, and afterwards advanced into the rank and number of the Twelve, in the place of Judas: it must needs follow that the twelve Apostles shined in an higher sphere than these lesser luminaries. Now that Matthias had before been one of the seventy, appeareth by the concurrent testi∣monies of Euseb. l. 1. Eccles. Hist. c. 12. & l. 2. cap. 1. and of Epiphanius contr. haeres. 20. n. 4. to whom, for brevity sake, I refer the Reader. And this the rather, because the Scripture is so full and pregnant in it; it being a condition, or qualification, if you will, required by S. Peter, in those that were the Candidates for so high a Digni∣ty,* 1.63 that they accompanied the Apostles all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out amongst them. And that we know none did, but the Seventy only. So then it is most clear, and manifest, both by authority of Scripture, and consent of Fathers, that our Saviour instituted in his Church two ranks of Ministers, the one subordinate unto the other: and consequently, laid the first foundations of it, in such a Fatherly, and mo∣derate imparity, as bound all following times and ages, that would not willingly op∣pose so Divine an Ordinance, to observe the like.

And yet it is not to be thought, that this superiority thus by him established, [unspec X] doth contradict those other passages of holy Scripture, wherein he doth prohibit all domi∣nion over one another. They much mistake the business who conceive it so. The Jews in general, and all the followers of Christ particularly, expected that the pro∣mised Messiah should come with power, restore again the lustre of the Jewish Kingdom, and free them from that yoke and bondage, which by the Romans had been laid upon them. We thought, said Cleophas, that this had been he that should have delivered Israel.* 1.64 And what he thought, was solemnly expected by all the rest.* 1.65 Domine, si in tempore hoc restitues regnum Israel, Lord, say they, even in the very moment of his Ascension, wilt thou at this time restore again the Kingdom unto Israel? Upon which fancy and ima∣gination, no marvail if they harboured some ambitious thought; every one hoping for the nearest places, both of power and trust about his person. This was the great∣ness which they aimed at: and this our Saviour laboured to divery them from: by interdicting all such power and Empire, as Princes, and the favourites of Princes have upon their Vassals. Ye know (saith he) that the Princes of the Gentiles exercise Dominion over them, and they that are great exercise auhtority upon them: Vobis autem non sic,* 1.66 But so it shall not be amongst you. Where plainly it appears, both by the Text and context: first, that this strife and contestation was only amongst the twelve Apostles; and there∣fore howsoever it may prove that there was to be a parity or equality amongst them∣selves, yet it will never prove, but that they were, and might be still superiour unto the Seventy. And secondly, that Christ our Saviour doth not prohibit them the use and exercise of all authority, on those who were inferiour and subordinate to them; but only such authority as the Princes of the Gentiles, and the great Lords and Mini∣sters about them did exercise upon their Subjects. The power and government of

the Apostles in the Church of Christ was meerly 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, such as a Father beareth unto his children: but not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a Lordly, and imperious Rule, such as a Master exerciseth on his slaves and servants:* 1.67 Not as Lords over Gods inheritance, but as the hel∣pers of their joy, say the two Apostles, and herein stands the difference, according unto that of Chrysostom, Principes mundi ideo fiunt, ut dominentur minoribus suis, The Princes of the Earth were made to this end and purpose, that they might Lord it over their inferiours, and make them slaves, and spoil them, and devour them, abasing them unto the death, for their own profit and glory: Principes autem Ecclesiae fiunt, &c. But the Governours or Princes of the Church were instituted to another end, viz. To serve their inferiours, and to minister unto them all such things, as they have received from the Lord.

This eminence and superiority over all the Church, [unspec XI] which was thus setled in the Apostles by our Lord and Saviour, will appear more fully, if we consult the several ministrations committed unto them, and to them alone. For unto them alone it was, that Christ committed the whole power of preaching of his holy Word, administring his blessed Sacraments, retaining and forgiving sins, ruling and ordering of his flock: giving them also further power of instituting, and ordaining such, by whom these several Offices were to be performed till his second coming. None but the Twelve were present with him, when he ordained the blessed Sacrament of his body and blood:* 1.68 and unto them alone was said Hoc facite, do this: i. e. take bread, and break, and bless it, and distribute it, in remembrance of me. To the eleven alone it was that he gave commission to go into all the World and preach the Gospel to all creatures,* 1.69 baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. They only had that powerful and immediate mission,* 1.70 Sicut misit me Pater, As my Father sent me, so send I you; and upon them alone he breathed, saying, Receive the Holy Ghost: whose sins ye do remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose sins you do retain, they are retained. Finally, they, and none but they were trusted with the feeding, and the governance of the Flock of Christ, (the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the Greek doth imply them both) for howsoever Pasce oves meas,* 1.71 was in particular spoken to Saint Peter; yet was that charge incumbent on them all, as before we noted from Saint Austin. By all which passages and Texts of Scripture, it is clear and manifest, that the Apostles were by Christ ordained to be the sole and ordinary Teachers, Bishops, and Pastors of the Church, next and immediately under his most blessed self,* 1.72 who still continueth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the great Shepheard of the Sheep, as Paul; the Shepheard and Bishop of our Souls, as Saint Peter calls him. The Seventy had no part in this new Commissi∣on, the dispensation of the Word, and Sacraments, but at second hand; as they were afterwards intrusted with it, by the holy Apostles, either as Prophets, Presby∣ters, or Evangelists, according to the measure of the Grace which was given unto them: or specially designed to some part therein, after the Ascension of our Lord and Saviour, by the immediate designation of the Holy Ghost. And when they were entrusted with a part thereof, yet were they still secundi Ordinis, Ministers of a second rank, inferiour unto the Apostles, both in place and power, to whom all latitude of power was given. Nay, the Apostles took an hint from this different mission, to in∣stitute two several sorts of Ministers in the Church of Christ: the one subordinate unto the other, as were the Seventy unto them. And this by vertue of these words in their Commission, Ita mitto vos; i. e. as the Arch-Bishop of Spalato very well applyeth it,* 1.73 Sicut ego à Patre habui potestatem eligendi Ministros, etiam diversi ordinis, ita & vos pariter habeatis. As I received power from my heavenly Father, of instituting Ministers, even of divers Orders, so I give it you. And therefore whatsoever the Apostles did therein, they did it after Christs example, and by his authority: and consequently, the imparity of Ministers by them ordained, was founded on the Law of God, and the original institution of our Saviour Christ, by whom the power of Ordination was to them committed, and by them unto their Successours in the Church for ever.

To bring this Chapter to an end, [unspec XII] our Saviour Christ having thus furnished his A∣postles with those several powers, faculties, and preheminences which before we spake of; he thought it best to recommend them to the blessings of Almighty God, whose work they were to go about. And therefore being to take his fare-well of them,* 1.74 did in a very solemn manner bestow his benediction on them. Elevatis mani∣bus suis benedixit eis, he lifted up his hands, and blessed them, as Saint Luke hath it. Which benediction Saint Austin takes to be a consecrating of those holy men unto the power and dignity of Bishops.* 1.75 Ipse enim priusquam in caelos ascenderet, imponens

manum Apostolis, ordinavit cos Episcopos: as the Father hath it. Which whether it were so or not, I mean so done with such an outward Form and Ceremony, and in that very point of time, is perhaps uncertain: But sure I am, that for the thing it self, which is here delivered, the Fathers, many of them do agree with Austin; affirming, passim, in their writings, that the Apostles were made Bishops by our blessed Lord. Saint Cyprian voucheth it expresly. The Deacons ought to understand,* 1.76 quoniam Apo∣stolos, i. e. Episcopos, & Praepositos Dominus elegit, that the Lord Christ himself did chuse the Apostles, that is, the Bishops and Rulers of the Church, and that the Apostles after his ascension did ordain the Deacons to be the Ministers of their Episcopal function, and the necessities of the Church. Saint Ambrose doth affirm the same,* 1.77 Caput it aque in Ecclesia Apostolos posuit, &c. Christ, saith he, made the Apostles the head (or su∣preme Governours) of his Church, they being the Legats or Ambassadours of Christ, according unto that of the Apostle, 2 Cor. 5.20. And then he adds, Ipsi sunt Epi∣scopi, that they were Bishops. More plainly in his Comment on the Ephesians, Apo∣stoli Episcopi sunt, Prophetae, explanatores Scripturarum, The Apostles, saith he,* 1.78 are Bishops, and Prophets, the Expositors of Scripture. But because question hath been made, whether indeed those Commentaries are the works of Ambrose, or of some other ancient Writer; he tells us in his Notes on the 43. Psalm, that in those words of Christ, Pasce oves meas, Peter was made a Bishop by our Lord and Saviour.* 1.79 Signi∣ficat Ambrosius Petrum Sacerdotem, hoc est, Episcopum electum, illis verbis, Pasce oves meas: as the place is cited by the Arch-Bishop of Spalato. And thus Saint Chrysostom speak∣ing of the election of the Seven, saith plainly, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that then there were no Bishops in the Church,* 1.80 but only the Apostles.

But what need more be said in the present business, [unspec XIII] than that which is delivered in the holy Scripture, about the surrogation of some other in the place of Judas: wherein the place or function of an Apostle is plainly called Episcopatus;* 1.81 Episcopatum ejus accipiat alter, let another take his Bishoprick, as the English reads it. His Bishop∣rick, i. e. saith Chrysostom, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, his Principality, his Priesthood,* 1.82 the place of government that belonged unto him, had he kept his station. A Text most plain and pregnant as the Fathers thought, to prove that the Episcopal dignity was vested in the persons of the Lords Apostles. The Comment under the name of Ambrose, which before we spake of, having said, Ipsi sunt Episcopi,* 1.83 that the Apostles were Bishops, adds for the proof thereof these words of Peter, Episcopatum ejus acci∣piat alter. And the true Ambrose saying of Judas,* 1.84 that he was a Bishop [Episcopus enim & Judas fuit] adds for the proof thereof the same very Text. Finally, to conclude this matter, Saint Cyprian, shewing that Ordinations were not made with∣out the privity of the people, in the Jewish Church,* 1.85 adds that the same was after∣wards observed by the holy Apostles, Quando de ordinando in locum Judae Episcopo; when Peter spake unto the people, about the ordering of a Bishop in the place of Judas. But for a further proof of this, that the Apostles were ordained Bishops by our Lord and Saviour, we shall see more hereafter in convenient place,* 1.86 when we are come to shew, that in the government of the Church, the Bishops were the proper Successors of the Apostles; and so esteemed to be by those, who otherwise were no great friends unto Episcopacy. In the mean time, we may take notice of that impudent assertion of Jobannes de Turrecremata: viz. Quod solus Petrus à Christo Episcopus est ordinatus:* 1.87 that Peter, only Peter was made Bishop by our Saviour Christ, and that the rest of the A∣postles received from Peter their Episcopal consecration: wherein I find him second∣ed by Dominicus Jacobatius, lib. 10. de Concil. Art. 7. A Paradox so monstrous and absurd, that howsoever Bellarmine doth reckon it amongst other the Prerogatives of that Apostle, in his first Book de Romano Pontifice, cap. 23. yet upon better thoughts, he rejects it utterly in his 4th Book upon that argument, Cap. 22. and so I leave it.

Thus having shewn in what estate the Church was founded by our Saviour, and in what terms he left it unto his Apostles: we must next see what course was taken by them to promote the same, what use they made of that authority which was trusted to them.

CHAP. II. The foundation of the Church of Hierusalem under the Government of Saint James the Apostle, and Simeon, one of the Disciples, the two first Bishops of the same.

• 1. Matthias chosen into the place of Judas.
• 2. The coming of the Holy Ghost, and on whom it fell.
• 3. The greatest measure of the Spirit fell on the Apostles, and so by consequence the great∣est power.
• 4. The several Ministrations in the Church then given; and that in ranking of the same, the Bishops are intended in the name of Pastors.
• 5. The sudden growth of the Church of Hie∣rusalem, and the making of Saint James the first Bishop there.
• 6. The former point deduced from Scripture.
• 7. And proved by the general consent of Fa∣thers.
• 8. Of the Episcopal Chair or Throne of Saint James, and his Successors in Hierusalem.
• 9. Simeon elected by the Apostles to succeed S. James.
• 10. The meaning of the word Episcopus, and from whence borrowed by the Church.
• 11. The institution of the Presbyters.
• 12. What interest they had in the common business of the Church, whilst S. James was Bishop.
• 13. The Council of Hierusalem, and what the Presbyters had to do therein.
• 14. The Institution of the Seven, and to what Office they were called.
• 15. The names of Ecclesiastical functions, promiscuously used in holy Scripture.

OUR Saviour Christ having thus Authorized his Apostles to Preach the Gospel over all the World, [unspec I] to every Creature; and given them power as well of mini∣string the Sacraments, as of retaining and remitting sins, as before is said; thought fit to leave them to themselves,* 1.88 only commanding them to tarry in the City of Hieru∣salem until they were indued with further power from on high, whereby they might be fitted for so great a work.* 1.89 And when he had spoken those things, while they beheld, he was taken up, and a Cloud received him out of their sight. No sooner was he gone to the Heavenly glories, but the Apostles with the rest, withdrew themselves unto Hieru∣salem, as he had appointed; where the first care they took was, to fill up their num∣ber, to surrogate some one or other of the Disciples in the place of Judas, that so the Word of God might be fulfilled,* 1.90 which he had spoken by the Psalmist, Episcopatum ejus accipiat alter. A business of no small importance, and therefore fit to be imparted unto all the Brethren; not so much that their suffrage and consent herein was necessa∣ry, as that they might together joyn in prayer to Almighty God,* 1.91 to direct the action, whose business indeed it was, and unto whom alone the whole election properly per∣tained. All that they did was to propose two men unto the Lord their God (Et statuerunt duos,* 1.92 saith the Text) such as they thought most fit for so great a charge, and so to leave it to his providence, to shew and manifest which of the two he pleased to choose. In the appointment of which two, whether that statuerunt being a Verb of the Plural number, be to be referred to all the multitude, as Chrysostom is of opinion, or only unto the Apostles, and the Seventy, as some others think, it comes all to one. For the whole number being but an hundred and twenty,* 1.93 and being that the Apostles with the Seventy (out of which rank the nomination of the two was made) made up the number of fourscore; it must needs be that the appointment in effect was in them alone. And though I rather do incline to Chrysostom, in this particular, that the appointment of these two was done by all the multitude in general;* 1.94 yet I can yield by no means to the next that followeth. For shewing some politick and worldly reasons, why Peter did permit the people to have an interest in the business, he first asked this question, [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; whether it were not lawful for Saint Peter to have chose the man. And then he answereth positively, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that it was most lawful, but that he did forbear to do it, lest he might seem to do it out of partiality. In this I must crave leave to dissent from Chrysostom. The power of making an Apostle was too high a priviledge to be intrusted unto any of the Sons of Adam.* 1.95 Paul was not made Apostle, though an Abortive one, as he calls himself, either of men, or by men, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father. What priviledge or

power soever Peter had as an Apostle of the Lord in making Bishops, or as a Bishop of the Church in ordaining Presbyters; he had no power to make Apostles. The Pope might sing Placebo, if it had been otherwise; and we should have Apostles more than ten times twelve, if nothing were required unto it, but Saint Peters Fiat.

But to proceed: This weighty business being thus dispatched,* 1.96 and Matthias who before was of the Seventy, being numbred with the eleven Apostles, it pleased God to make good his promise of pouring on them in a plentiful and signal manner the gifts and graces of his holy Spirit. Not on the Twelve alone, or the Seventy only, but on the whole body of the Disciples, even on the whole 120. which before we spake of. I know that Beza and some others, would limit this effusion of the Holy Ghost to the Twelve alone. Why, and to what intent he doth so resolve it, though I may guess perhaps, yet I will not judge; but sure it is, he so resolves it.* 1.97 Solis Apostolis propria est haec Spiritus sancti missio, sicut proprius fuit Apostolatus, as his own words are in his An∣notations on the Text. The same he also doth affirm in his Book de Ministrorum Evangelii gradibus, cap. 5. But herein Beza leaves the Fathers and the Text to boot. Saint Austin tells us, that the Holy Ghost came from Heaven,* 1.98 & implevit uno loco sedentes centum viginti, and filled one hundred and twenty sitting in one place. Saint Chrysostom affirms the same, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. what (saith he) did it come on the twelve alone, not upon the rest? And then he answereth, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, not so by no means, it fell on all the 120 which were there Assembled. Nor doth he only say it, but he proves it also, alledging in defence of his assertion that very plea and argument which was used by Peter, to clear himself and his associates from the im∣putation of being drunken with new wine,* 1.99 viz. Hoc est quod dictum fuit per Prophetam Joel, This is that which was spoken by the Prophet Joel, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh, &c. Besides, the text and context make it plain enough, that this effu∣sion of the Holy Ghost was upon them all.* 1.100 In the first Chapter of the Acts we find them all together (the whole 120.) with one accord: And in the first verse of the second Chapter, we find them all together with the same accord: And then it followeth that there appeared cloven tongues, like as of fire, seditque supra singulos eorum,* 1.101 and sate upon each of them; and they were all filled with the Holy Ghost. If they were all together (as we found before) and all were filled with the Holy Ghost: No question but there were more filled with it than the twelve Apostles. And when as Peter with the eleven stood up, making an Apology for the rest, and saying, These men are not drunken,* 1.102 as ye suppose; it must needs be that others, besides the twelve, and indeed all the company were suspected of it. Add, as by way of surplusage, and ex abundanti, that the Seven chosen by the multitude to serve the Tables, who questionless were of the number of the Seventy, are said to have been full of the Holy Ghost,* 1.103 before that the Apostles had laid hands on them.

So then it is most evident, as I conceive it, [unspec III] that the Holy Ghost was given to every one of the Disciples, the whole number of them, to every one according to his place and station, according to that service and imployment, in which the Lord intended to make use of them. For unto one was given by the spirit the word of Wisdom,* 1.104 to another the word of Knowledge, and to another the gift of healing by the same spirit; to another the working of Miracles, to another Prophesie, to another discerning of Spirits, to another divers kinds of Tongues, to another the interpretation of Tongues. Every one of them had their several gifts; the Apostles all 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,* 1.105 as we read in Chrysostom. Whatever was divided amongst the residue for the advancement of Gods glory, and the improvement of his Church, that was united in the persons of the holy Apostles, whom God had ranked as much above them in their gifts and graces, as they were in place. By means whereof it came to pass, that howsoever the Lord out of these 120 made choice of some to be Evangelists, some to be Prophets, and others to be Pastors, Presbyters, and Teachers; yet the Apostles still retained their superio∣rity, ordering and directing them in their several Ministeries to the best edifying of the Church. For thus we read how Paul disposed of Timothy and Titus, who were both Evangelists; sending them, as the occasions of the Church required, from Asia to Greece, and then back to Asia, and thence to Italy. How he sent Crescens to Galatia,* 1.106 Titus to Dalmatia, Tychicus to Ephesus; commanding Erastus to abide at Corinth, and using the Ministery of Luke at Rome.* 1.107 So find we how he ordered those that had the spirit of Prophecy, and such as had the gift of tongues, that every one might use his talent unto edification; how he ordained Bishops in one place, Elders or Presbyters in another, as we shall se•• hereafter in this following story. The like we may affirm

of Saint Peter also, and of the rest of the Apostles, though there be less left upon re∣cord of their Acts and Writings, than are remaining of Saint Paul; whose mouths and pens being guided by the Holy Ghost, have been the Canon ever since of all saving truth. For howsoever Mark and Luke, two of the Evangelists, have left be∣hind them no small part of the Book of God, of their own enditing; yet were not ei∣ther of their writings reckoned as Canonical in respect of the Authors, but as they had been taken from the Apostles mouths, and ratified by their Authority, as both Saint Luke himself,* 1.108 and the Fathers testifie. And for a further mark of difference be∣tween the Apostles and the rest of the Disciples, we may take this also; that though the rest of the Disciples had all received the Holy Ghost, yet none could give the same but the Apostles only. Insomuch that when Philip the Evangelist had preached the Gospel in Samaria, and converted many, and Baptized them in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ; yet none of them received the Holy Ghost till Peter. and John came down unto them, and prayed for them, and laid their hands on them, as the Scriptures witness. That was a priviledge reserved to the Apostles, and to none but them. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,* 1.109 as it is in Chrysostom, And when the two Apostles did it, they did it without Philips help or co-operation, who joyned not in it, nor con∣tributed at all to so great a work, for ought we find in holy Scripture.

In this regard it is no marvel, [unspec IV] if in the enumerating of those ministrations which did concur in the first founding of the Church, the Apostles always have preheminence. First,* 1.110 Apostles: Secondarily, Prophets: Thirdly, Teachers, &c. as Saint Paul hath ranked them. Nor did he rank them so by chance, but gave to every one his proper place,* 1.111 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, saith Saint Chrysostom, first placing that which was most excellent, and afterwards descending unto those of a lower rank. Which plainly shews, that in the composition of the Church there was a prius and posterius in regard of order, a 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or more honourable, as the Father calls it, in re∣gard of power; as in the constitution of the body natural, to which the Church is there resembled, some of the members do direct, and some obey, some of them being honourable,* 1.112 some feeble, but all necessary. The like may also be observed out of the 4. chap. of the same Apostle unto the Ephesians, where the Apostles are first placed and ranked above the rest of the ministrations, Prophets, Evangelists, Pastors, and Teachers, of which some were to be but temporary in the Church of God, the others to remain for ever.* 1.113 For as Saint Chrysostom doth exceeding well expound that Scripture, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, First, he doth name Apostles, as they in whom all powers and graces were united: Secondly, Prophets, such as was Agabus in the Acts: Thirdly, Evangelists, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, such as had made no progress into many Countries, but preached the Gospel in some certain Regions, as Aquila and Priscilla; and then Pastors and Teachers, who had the government of a Country or Nation, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, such as were setled and employed in a certain place or City, as Timothy and Titus. If then a question should be made, whom S. Paul meaneth here by Pastors and Teachers; I answer, it is meant of Bishops, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as the Father hath it, such as were placed over some certain Cities; and that the Bishops were accounted in the ancient times the only ordinary Pastors of the Church, in the room and stead of the Apostles, we shall shew hereafter.* 1.114 And this I am the rather induced to think, because that in the first Epistle to those of Corinth, written when as there were but few Bishops of particular Cities, S. Paul doth speak of Teachers only; but here in this to the Ephesians, writ at such time as Timothy and Titus, and many others had formerly been ordained Bishops, he adds Pastors also.* 1.115 Certain I am that both Theophylact and Oecumenius do expound the words by Bishops only, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, such Bi∣shops as both Timothy and Titus were by them accounted. Nay, even Saint Hierome seemeth to incline this way,* 1.116 making the Prelates of the Church, or the Praesides Ecclesiae, as he calls them there, to be the Pastors and Teachers mentioned by Saint Paul, i.e. Pastores ovium, magistros hominum; Pastors in reference to their Flocks, Teachers in reference to their Disciples.

But to go on unto our story. [unspec V] Our Saviour having thus enabled and supplyed his labourers with the gifts and graces of his Spirit, it could not be but that the Harvest went on apace.* 1.117 The first day added to the Church 3000 souls. And after that, God added daily to it such as should be saved. The miracle wrought by the hands of the two Apostles at the Beautiful gate,* 1.118 opened a large door to the further increase thereof. For presently upon the same, and Peters Sermon made upon that occasion, we find that the number of the men which heard the word and believed,* 1.119 was about five thousand.

Not that there were so many added to the former number, as to make up five thou∣sand in the total; but that there were five thousand added to the Church more than had been formerly; S. Chrysostom and Oecumenius,* 1.120 both affirming that there were more converted by this second Sermon of Saint Peters, than by the first. So that the Church increasing daily more and more, multitudes both of men and women being continually added to the Lord, and their numbers growing dreadful to the Jewish Magistrates;* 1.121 it seemed good to the Apostles, [Vers. 26] (who by the intimation of the Spirit found that there would be work enough elsewhere) to choose one or other of their sacred number, to be the Bishop of that Church, and take charge thereof. And this they did not now by lots, but in the ordinary course and manner of election, pitching on James the Son of Alpheus,* 1.122 who in regard of consanguinity is sometimes called in Scripture the Lords Brother; and in regard of his exceeding piety and uprightness, was surnamed the Just. Which action I have placed here, even in the cradle of the Church upon good Authority. For first, Eusebius tells us out of Clemens, that this was done 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,* 1.123 after the Ascension of our Saviour; Hierome more plainly, statim post passionem Domini, immediately upon his passion.* 1.124 We may with good secu∣rity conclude from both, that it was done not long after Christs Ascension, as soon almost as the Believers were increased to a considerable number. And lastly,* 1.125 that Ignatius hath made S. Stephen to be the Deacon, or subservient Minister to this James the Bishop of Hierusalem; and then we must needs place it in some middle time, between the Feast of Pentecost, and the 26. of December, when Saint Stephen was Martyred. So early did the Lord take care to provide Bishops for his Church, and set apart a special Pastor for his holy City.

'Tis true, there is no manifest record hereof in holy Scripture, [unspec VI] but then withal it is as true, that in the Scripture there are many pregnant circumstances, whereon the truth hereof may well be grounded.* 1.126 Saint Paul some three years after his Conver∣sion, went up unto Hierusalem to see Peter, but found no other of the Apostles there, save only James the Lords Brother. Ask Hierome, who this James was, whom S. Paul then saw, and he will tell you that it was James the Bishop of Hierusalem,* 1.127 Hic autem Jacobus Episcopus Hierosolymorum primus fuit, cognomento Justus. And then withal, we have the reason why Paul should find him at Hierusalem, more than the rest of the Apostles, viz. because the rest of the Apostles were dispersed abroad, according to the exigence of their occasions; and James was there residing on his Pastoral or Episcopal charge. Fourteen years after his Conversion,* 1.128 being the eleventh year after the former interview, he went up into Hierusalem again, with Barnabas and Titus, and was toge∣ther present with them at the first general Council, held by the Apostles. In which, upon the agitation of the business there proposed, the Canon and determination is drawn up positively and expresly in the words of James.* 1.129 Do you desire the reason of it, Peter and others being there? Chrysostom on those words of Scripture,* 1.130 James an∣swered saying, doth express it thus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, this James was Bishop of Hierusalem. And this no question was the reason, why Paul re∣citing the names of those with whom especially he had conference at his being there, puts James in the first place before Peter and John, viz.* 1.131 because that he was Bishop there, as Estius hath noted on that Text. The Council being ended, Paul returneth to Antioch, and there by reason of some men that came from James, Peter withdrew, [Vers. 12] and separated himself, eating no longer with the Gentiles. Why takes the Apostle such especial notice that they came from James, but because they were sent from him, as from their Bishop, about some business of the Church; this James being then Bishop of Hierusalem,* 1.132 [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] as both Theophylact and Oecumenius note upon the place. Finally, nine years after this, being the 58. of Christs Nativity, Paul makes his last journey to Hierusalem; still he finds James there.* 1.133 And the day follow∣ing Paul went in with us unto James, &c. as the Text informs us.* 1.134 Chrysostom notes up∣on the place, that James there spoken of was the Lords Brother, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and Bishop of Hierusalem. So that for 20 years together, we have appa∣rent evidence in Scripture of James residing at Hierusalem, and that as Bishop there, as the Fathers say.

For that Saint James was Bishop of Hierusalem, [unspec VII] there is almost no ancient Writer but bears witness of it. Ignatius, who was made Bishop of Antiochia,* 1.135 within eight years after the Death and Martyrdom of this James in their account, who place it latest, makes Stephen to be the Deacon of this James, as Clemens and Anacletus were to Peter; which is an implication that James was Bishop of Hierusalem, out of which

City we do not find that Stephen ever travelled. Egesippus, who lived near the Apo∣stles times,* 1.136 makes this James Bishop of Hierusalem, as both Saint Hierom and Eusebius have told us from him. Clemens of Alexandria not long after him, doth confirm the same. And out of him and other monuments of antiquity, Eusebius doth assure us of him, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that he was the first that held the Episcopal throne or chair in the Church of Hierusalem. Saint Cyril,* 1.137 Bishop of Hierusalem, speaks of him as of his Predecessor, [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] in that Church, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as the first Bishop of that Diocess. And Epiphanius for his greater credit, makes him not only the first Bishop that ever was, Haeres. 29. n. 3. but Bishop of the Lords own Throne, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,* 1.138 and that too by the Lords appoint∣ment. S. Ambrose doth assign this reason, why Paul going unto Hierusalem to see Peter,* 1.139 should find James there, quia illic constitutus erat Episcopus ab Apostolis, because that by the rest of the Apostles he was made Bishop of that place. Saint Hierom doth not only affirm as much, as for his being Bishop of Hierusalem, but also doth lay down the time of his Creation to be not long after our Redeemers passion, as we saw before. Saint Chrysostom,* 1.140 besides what was alledged from him in the former Section, tells in his Homilies on S. Johns Gospel, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that Saint James had the Bishoprick of Hierusalem. Where by the way I cannot but take notice of a lewd forgery, or at the best a gross mistake of Baronius, who to advance the Soveraignty of the Church of Rome,* 1.141 will have this James to take the Bishoprick of Hierusalem from Saint Peters hands, and cites this place of Chrysostom for proof there∣of. But surely Chrysostom saith no such matter; for putting the question, how James was made the Bishop of Hierusalem, since Pasce oves meas was said to Peter; returns this answer, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that Christ made Peter not the Pastor of a particular place, but of all the universe. That James received his Bishop∣rick from Peter, not one word saith Chrysostom: 'Tis true, the Latin reads it as the Cardinal doth; but such an undertaker as he was, should have sought the fountains. As for Saint Austin,* 1.142 he agrees herein with the other Fathers, in his second book against Cresconius; where speaking of the Church of Hierusalem, he describes it thus, quam primus Apostolus Jacobus Episcopatu suo rexit, whereof S. James the Apostle was the first Bishop. Add here the joynt consent and suffrage of 289 Prelates in the sixth General Council of Constantinople,* 1.143 affirming James the Lords Brother to be the first Bishop of Hierusalem; not to say any thing of Oecumenius and Theophylact, whom before we cited. Never was point in issue tried by a fuller evidence.

And yet one other circumstance occurs to confirm the point, [unspec VIII] which is, that till Eusebius time,* 1.144 the Chair, or Cathedra Episcopalis, wherein S. James was said to be in∣throned, was very carefully preserved by his Successors, as a sacred Monument, and gladly shewed to all that desired to see it; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as the Author hath it. An evidence of no mean consideration, as being vouched by an Author that lived before the superstitious reverence and esteem of Reliques had been introduced into the world, or any Impostures of that kind put upon the people. Unto which testimony of Eusebius,* 1.145 we may add that of Beda also, who in his Marty∣rologie doth place the memorial or commemoration of the Apostles inthronizing in that Chair or Throne upon the 27 of December; wherein I dare not joyn with him as unto the day, though I approve his observation of the fact or ceremony, as being every way conform to the ancient custom of the Church. One only thing I have to add and rectifie,* 1.146 which concerns S. James, and is briefly thus. S. Hierome tells us out of Egesippus, huic soli licitum esse ingredi Sancta Sanctorum; that it was only lawful to S. James to enter into the Holy of Holies; whereas in truth it should not be huic soli licitum, but huic solitum. And this appears to be the true and ancient reading, by comparing the translation of Sophronius with S. Hieroms Text, wherein we have it, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. that it was his custom so to do; the Jews permitting him to enjoy that priviledge in the declining times of their State and Temple, by rea∣son of the holiness of his conversation.* 1.147 Finally, to conclude with Hierom, this blessed Man of God was Martyr'd in the 7 year of Nero (An. Chr. 63.) postquam triginta annos Hierosolymis rexerat Ecclesiam; after he had been Bishop of Hierusalem 30 year; that is to say 29 years compleat, and the 30 currant. By which account it must needs follow, that the making of this James Bishop of Hierusalem, was one of the first acti∣ons of the Apostles, after they were endued with the Holy Ghost.

James being dead, [unspec IX] Simeon another of the Lords Disciples was made the Bishop of that Church, Peter, and Paul, and John, and many other of the Apostles, being then alive, and all concurring in this choice, and consenting to it. Eusebius,* 1.148 as he tells the story, makes it a very solemn business, scarce such another Precedent to be found in all antiquity. And he relates it thus, as followeth, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 &c. After the Martyrdom of James, and the taking of Hierusalem (by the Romans) it is affirmed that the Apostles and Disciples of our Lord and Saviour which were yet alive, together with those of the Lords kindred after the flesh, many of whom continued living till that time, resorted thither. Their business was to enter into consultation, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, whom they should find most worthy to succeed in the place of James; and having well considered of it, they all with one accord, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, saith the Author, agreed on Simeon the Son of Cleophas, one of our Saviours kindred also, as fit and worthy to possess the Episcopal Throne,* 1.149 and look unto the government of that Church or Diocess. So that in this election there did not only meet together the Lords kindred, who might perhaps desire to keep that holy honour in their own family; not the Disciples only of the lower rank, who might perhaps be easily induced to consent thereto, to gratifie the kindred of their Lord and Master: But there met also the Apostles, men guided and directed by the Spirit of God; and all of these coming from several parts and countries did, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, with one accord, with one unanimous assent, agree upon the choice of this worthy man, to be the Bishop or chief Pastor of the mother City, which place he held until the time of Trajan, during whose Empire he received the Crown of Martyr∣dom, Anno 109.

Here then we have two Bishops of Hierusalem, [unspec X] made by the general and joynt con∣sent of the Apostles; and those two Bishops not in name and title, but in power and office, according to the Ecclesiastical notion of the word, and as the same is taken in the writings of the Fathers before alledged. I know the word Episcopus, in the primitive and proper notion doth signifie a Supervisor or Overseer, as it is rendred in our last Translation, Act. 20.4.* 1.150 Such were the Officers of the Athenians whom Suidas speaks of, sent by that State to look into the Government of the Cities under their domi∣nion, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. And these, saith he, were called Bishops and Guardians. In this last sense the word is often used by Plutarch,* 1.151 as where he calleth Numa, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, The Bishop or Guardian of the Vestal Virgins; and their God Terminus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Overseer and preserver of peace and amity. Thus do we read in Sophocles of certain Officers called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, such as took care about the dead; of others in the civil Laws, qui pani,* 1.152 & caeteris rebus venalibus praesunt, which had the oversight of the markets, and those called Episcopi. And thus doth Tully tell us of himself,* 1.153 Vult me Pompeius episcopum esse, &c. that Pompey had made him the Overseer or the Guardian of Campania, and the whole Sea-coast. This being the meaning of the word in its native sense, it pleased the Holy Ghost to make choice thereof, to signifie the Pastor or Superiour Minister, to whom the governance of the Church was trusted; one who was vested with a constant and fixed preheminence, as well over the Clergy as the Laity, committed to his charge; such as both Timothy and Titus are described to be in S. Pauls Epistles,* 1.154 of whom we shall say more hereafter. S. Austin rightly understood the word, and the original of it, when he told us this, Graecum est enim, atque inde ductum vocabulum, quod ille qui praeficitur, eis quibus praeficitur superintendit, &c. The word, saith he, is Greek originally, and from thence derived, shewing that he which is preferred, or set over others, is bound to take the oversight and care of those whom he is set over. And so proceeding unto the Etymology, or Grammar of the word, he concludes it thus, ut intelligat se non esse Episcopum, qui praeesse dilexerit, non prodesse, that he deserves not to be called a Bishop, which seeketh rather to prefer himself, than to profit others. Saint Austin being himself a Bishop, knew well the meaning of the word, according to the Ecclesiastical notion and sense thereof. And in that notion, the Scriptures generally, and all the Fathers universally have used the same; out of which word Episcopus (whether Greek or Latine) the Germans had their Bischop, and we thence our Bishop. If sometimes in the holy Scripture, the word be used to signifie an ordinary Presbyter, it is at such times, and such places only, when as the Presbyters had the chief gover∣nance of the Flocks, next and immediately under the Apostles, and where there was no Bishop, properly so called, established over them, as we shall see hereafter in the Churches of S. Pauls plantation.

Having thus seen the sudden, [unspec XI] and miraculous growth of the Church of God, in, and about the City of Hierusalem; and seen the same confirmed and setled in Epi∣scopal government: our next enquiry must be made into the Clergy, which were to be subordinate to him, and to participate of the charge to him entrusted, according to his directions. And in this search, we first encounter with the Presbyters, the first, as well in time, as they are in dignity. The Deacon, though exceeding ancient, yet comes short in both. We shewed you in the former Chapter, how our Redeemer having chosen the Twelve Apostles, appointed other Seventy also, and sent them two and two before him,* 1.155 to prepare his way. Of these the Lord made choice of some to be Evangelists, and others to be Prophets, some to be Pastors, and Teachers, and others to be helps in Government, according to the measure, and the purpose of his grace bestowed upon them, in the effusion of his Spirit. And out of these thus fit∣ted and prepared for the work of God, I doubt not but there were some chosen to assist S. James, in the discharge of the great trust committed to him, by the common Counsel, and consent of the Apostles. Such as were after added unto them, accord∣ing to the exigences of that Church. I take it to be all of Saint James ordaining: who being a Bishop, and Apostle, is not to be denied the priviledg of ordaining Pres∣byters, it being a thing which both the Apostle Paul did do in all the Churches which he planted, and all succeeding Bishops since have done in their several Dioce∣ses. Certain it is, that there were Presbyters in the Church of Hierusalem, before the election of the Seven:* 1.156 Ignatius telling us that Stephen did minister, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. to James, and to the Presbyters, which were in Hierusalem. And certain also it is, that the Apostles first, and Bishops afterwards ordained Presby∣ters, to be assistant with them, and subservient to them, in their several charges: and this they did, according as the Fathers say, in imitation of our Lord and Saviour; who having chose his twelve Apostles,* 1.157 appointed Seventy others of a lower rank, Se∣ciendos Christi Discipulos, as S. Hierom calls them. Not that the Presbyters of the Church do succeed the Seventy, who were not founded in a perpetuity by our Sa∣viour Christ,* 1.158 as the Arch-Bishop of Spalato hath well observed: but only that they had a resemblance to them, and were ordained 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as the Council of Neo-Caesarea affirmed before, as secondary and subservient Ministers in the Church of God, And this is that which Beda tells us in his Comment on the Gospel of Saint Luke,* 1.159 that as the Twelve Apostles did premonstrate the Form of Bishops, so the Presbyters did bear the figure of the Seventy.

Another resemblance between the Presbyters and the Seventy may perhaps be this, [unspec XII] that as our Saviour in the choicing of these Disciples related to the number of the Elders in the state of Jewry: so the Apostles thought it fit to give unto the Ministers thus by them ordained (though they regarded not the number) the name of Elders, according to the custom of that State before. Presbyters, they are called in the Greek originals, which being often rendred Seniores in the vulgar Latin, occasioned that our first Translators (who perhaps looked no farther than the Latin) turned it into Elders: though I could heartily have wished they had retained the name of Pres∣byters, as the more proper, and specifical word of the two, by far. But for these Pres∣byters of the Church of Hierusalem (from whencesoever they may borrow or derive their name) we find thrice mention of them in the Book of the Acts, during the time Saint James was Bishop, viz. in the 11.15.21. In the first place we read, that when the Disciples which dwelt at Antioch,* 1.160 had made a contribution for the brethren of Judaea, they sent it to the Elders there by the hands of Barnabas and Saul. Ask Oecumenius who these Elders were, and he will tell you 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that they were the Apostles. And like enough it is, that the Apostles may be comprehended in that general name;* 1.161 they being indeed the elder brethren. Ask Calvin why this contribution was sent unto the Presbyters or Elders, being there were particular Officers appointed to attend the poor, as is set down in the 6. Chapter of the Acts; and he will tell you, that the Deacons were so appointed over that business, that notwithstanding they were still inferiour unto the Presby∣ters; nec quicquam sine eorum auctoritate agerent,* 1.162 and were not to do any thing there∣in without their authority. So for that passage in the 21. S. Luke relates how Paul, at his last going to Hierusalem, went in unto James, and that all the Elders were present; and adds withal, what counsel and advice they gave him, for his ingratia∣ting with the Jews. Here find we James the Bishop attended by his Presbyters, at the reception of Saint Paul:* 1.163 and they together joyning with him in the consultation then in hand, the business being great and weighty. And therefore Chrysostom ob∣serves,

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 that James determined nothing in it, as a Bishop, of his sole authority: but took Paul into counsel with him: and that the Presbyters on the other side, carried themselves with great respect and reverence towards him, [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] giving him an account, or reason of their following counsel. The Bishop never fist in a firmer Chair, than when his Chapter doth support it.

But that which is indeed the matter of the greatest moment, [unspec XIII] is that which occurs in the 15. Chapter of the Acts, touching the Council of Hierusalem: wherein the Presbyters are so often mentioned, as if without their presence and assistance, the Apostles had been able to determine nothing. Some would fain have it so perhaps, but it will not be, Saint Paul was so assured of the Doctrine by him delivered, as not to put it to the trial of a mortal man: and the Apostles of a spirit so infallible in the things of God, as not to need the counsel and assistance of inferiour persons. How many points of Doctrine did Saint Paul determine with∣out repairing to the Apostles? How many did the Apostles preach and publish with∣out consulting with the Presbyters? Somwhat there must be in it more than ordi∣nary, which did occasion this conjuncture; and is briefly this. Some of the Jews which had but newly been initiated in the faith of Christ, and were yet very zealous of their ancient Ceremonies, came from Hierusalem to Antiochia;* 1.164 and there delivered Doctrines contrary unto those which Paul taught before. It seems there were some Presbyters amongst them, for it is said, they taught the people: and they pretended too, that they did teach no other Doctrine, than that which had been authorized by the Apostles. The Doctrine was, that except men would be circumcised after the man∣ner of Moses, they could not be saved. Paul might have over-ruled this case, by his own authority. But partly for the satisfaction of the Antiochians, and partly for the full conviction of these false Teachers, he was content, by Revelation of the Spirit,* 1.165 to put the matter over to the resolution of such of the Apostles as were then abiding in Hierusalem: that by their general attestation, they might confirm his doctrine to be sound, and true. As for the Presbyters it concerned them to be present also, as well to clear themselves from authorizing any such false brethren to disturb the Church, as to prevent the like disorders in the time to come. This is the sum of the proceedings in this business. And this doth no way interest the Presbyters in the determination of points of faith, further than as they are concerned either in ha∣ving been a means to pervert the same; or for the clearing of themselves from the like suspicions. And yet I cannot but affirm withal, that pure and primitive anti∣quity did derive from hence the Form, and manner of their Councils: in which the Presbyters did oftentimes concur, both for voice and hand, I mean as well in giving of their suffrages, as the subscription of their names.* 1.166 Certain I am that in the Council held in Arragon, Anno 490. or thereabouts, it was provided among other things, ut non solum à Cathedralibus, verum etiam de Diocesanis: that certain Pres∣byters should be chosen, as well out of the Diocesan, as the Cathedral Churches, to attend that service; and that the Metropolitan should send out his Letters unto that effect: according as is still observed in holding of the Convocation of the Church of England.

Next to the constituting of the Presbyters in time and order, [unspec XIV] was the election of the Seven; and this the Apostles did put over to the people only: not inter∣medling in the same at all, further than in commending them to the grace of God, that they might faithfully discharge the trust committed to them. The Church was then in that condition, that the Disciples lived in one place together, and had all things common: some of them selling their Estates,* 1.167 and laying down the price thereof at the Apostles feet, that by them it might be distributed as occa∣sion was. But being it fell out, that some did think themselves neglected in the distribution, the Apostles, both to free themselves of so great a trouble,* 1.168 as also to avoid suspicion of being partial in the business, required them to make choice of such trusty men, as they conceived most fit to be the Stewards of their goods,* 1.169 and the dispensers of the common stock. This was the charge the Seven were called to by the people: which being no Ecclesiastical function, but a Civil trust; no dispensation of the Word and Sacraments, but a dispository power of the com∣mon Treasure: it was most consonant to the Rules of Reason, that the election of them should be left to the people only. I know these Seven are commonly both called, and accounted Deacons: but I find no such thing in the Texts, or story.

Neither in that Chapter, nor in all the Acts, is the word Deacon to be found: nor find I either Stephen or Philip (of whom the Scripture is most copious) to be so entituled.* 1.170 Philip indeed is called unus de septem, but no more, one of the Seven, but no such stile as Deacon added: which makes me think their Office was not such as it is conceived. And this I am the rather induced to think, because I find Saint Chrysostom,* 1.171 and others of the same opinion. Saint Chrysostom putting it unto the question, what dignity or Office these men had, what Ordination they received, and namely, whether that of Deacons; makes answer first, that in his time the use was otherwise, the Presbyters being there intrusted with the di∣stribution of the Churches Treasure, and then concludeth, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that it appeared not in his opinion, that they were ei∣ther Presbyters, or Deacons. The Fathers of the sixth Council in Constantinople building upon those words of Chrysostom,* 1.172 do affirm the same; determining expresly that those Seven mentioned in the Acts, were not ordained to any ministration at the Lords Table, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, but only to the service and attendance of the Common Tables.* 1.173 In which regard Saint Hierom looking back unto the Primitive institution, doth call the Deacons of his time, mensarum & viduarum Ministros, in his Epistle to Euagrius. For howsoever I believe not, on my former ground, that the Seven spoken of in the Acts, had either the Of∣fice or the name of Deacons, as it was used afterwards in the Church of God: yet I deny not but the Church took some hint from hence, even in the times of the Apostles, to institute that holy Order, and to appoint it to some special ministery in Gods publick service: as doth appear both by the Epistles of Saint Paul, and the Records of Primitive and pure antiquity. That Philip did both preach the Gospel, and baptize the Converts, or that Stephen did both preach the Gospel, and convince the adversary: related not to any power or faculty which they received by the addition or access of this new Office. For being they, and all the residue were of the Seventy,* 1.174 as the Fathers say: and that they had received the Holy Ghost before, as the Scriptures tell us: their preaching and baptizing, must relate to their former Calling. And it had been a degradation from their for∣mer dignity, being Presbyters at the least before, to be made Deacons now.

Thus have we seen the instituting of the several Orders of Bishops, [unspec XV] Presbyters, and Deacons, in the holy Hierarchie: according to those several names, which were in tract of time appropriated to their several functions in the Church of God. And certainly it did require some space of time, to estrange words from their natural to a borrowed sense, to bring them to an Ecclesiastical, from a Civil notion. So that it is no wonder, if at first the names and appellations of these several functions were used promiscuously, before that time had limited and re∣strained them to that express and setled signification which they still retain. That glorious name of an Apostle, which of it self did signifie a Messenger, (Graecè Aposto∣li,* 1.175 Latinè Missi appellantur, as Saint Austin hath it) was given by Christ as a pecu∣liar name to his twelve Disciples. And yet we find it sometimes given to inferiour persons,* 1.176 as to Andronicus and Junias, in the 16. Chap. to the Romans: sometimes reverting to its primitive and ancient use, as where the Messengers of the Churches are called Apostles,* 1.177 as in the 2. to those of Corinth, Apostoli Ecclesiarum gloria Chri∣sti, the Messengers of the Churches are the glory of Christ. So was it also with that reverend and venerable Title of Episcopus, borrowed and restrained from its general use, to signifie an Overseer in the Church of God: one who was trusted with the Go∣vernment, and superintendency of the flock of Christ committed to him: according to the acceptation of the word in the most ancient Authors of the Christian Church.* 1.178 And yet sometimes we find it given unto the Presbyters, as in the first of the Philippians in which Paul writing to the Bishops and Deacons, is thought by Bishops to mean Presbyters; partly because the Presbyters had then the government of that Church under the Apostle, and partly because it was against the ancient Apostolical constitution, that there should be many Bishops (properly so called) in one City. Thus also, for the Title Presbyter, which by the Church was used to signifie, not as before, an ancient Man, which is the na∣tive sense,* 1.179 and construction of it; but one in holy Orders, such as in after times were called by the name of Priests: it grew so general for a while, as to include both Bi∣shops and Apostles also; as Beza notes upon the first Epistle of Saint Peter, Chap. 5. And that perhaps upon the reason given by Ambrose, Omnis Episcopus Presbyter, non

tamen omnis Presbyter Episcopus, because that every Bishop was Presbyter, although not every Presbyter a Bishop. And yet sometimes we find in Scripture, that it re∣turned unto its primitive, and original use: as in the first to Tim. Cap. 5. v. 1. in which 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, is used to signifie an ancient Man. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, an ancient Woman, as by the Text and context doth at full appear. The like occurreth some∣times also in the ancient Writers. Last of all, for the word Diaconus, which in it self doth signifie any common Minister, or domestick servant, the Church made use thereof to denote such Men, as served in the inferiour ministeries of the Congre∣gation; such as according to the Ecclesiastical notion of the word we now call Dea∣cons, as in the first of the Philippians, and in the ancient Writers passim.* 1.180 Yet did it not so easily put off its original nature, but that it did sometimes revert to it again: as in the 13. of the Romans, in which the Magistrate is called Diaconus,* 1.181 being the publick Minister of Justice under God Almighty; [Verse 1] and Phoebe in the 16. of the same Epistle, is called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a servant of the Church of Cenchrea. Indeed the mar∣vel is not much that it should be so long before the Church could fasten and appro∣priate these particular names to the particular Officers of, and in the same; consi∣dering how long it was before she got a name unto her self. The word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which is used in Scripture to denote the Church, doth signifie amongst the ancient learned Writers, a meeting or assembly of the people for their common business: as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Not to omit the Thracians to the common Council.* 1.182 So in Aristophanes. The like we find also in Thucydides, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that having constituted the Assembly, they fell upon their alter∣cations. The first time that we find it used to denote the Church, is Matth. 16.18. and after frequently in holy Scripture: yet so, that it returned sometimes to its native sense, as in the 19. of the Acts, wherein we read, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that the assembly (of the Ephesians) was confused, ver. 32. and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, he dismissed the assembly, ver. 41. And therefore they which from identity of names in holy Scripture, conclude identity of Offices in the Church of Christ; and will have Presbyter, and Episcopus to be both one Calling, because the names are sometimes used promiscuously in the first beginnings: may with like equi∣ty conclude that every Deacon is a Magistrate, and every Presbyter an Apostle, or that the Church of Ephesus was nothing else than an assembly of the Citizens in the Town-Hall there, for the dispatch of business which concerned the Corporation.

CHAP. III. The Churches planted by Saint Peter, and his Disciples, originally founded in Episcopacy.

• 1. The founding of the Church of Antioch by Saint Peter; the first Bishop there.
• 2. A reconciliation of the difference about his successors in the same.
• 3. A list of Bishops planted by him in the Churches of the Circumcision.
• 4. Proof thereof from Saint Peters general Epistle to the Jews dispersed.
• 5. And from Saint Pauls unto the He∣brews.
• 6. Saint Pauls Praepositus, no other than a Bishop, in the opinion of the Fathers.
• 7. Saint Peter the first Bishop of the Church of Rome.
• 8. The difference about his next successors there, reconciled also.
• 9. An answer unto such Objections as have been made against S. Peters being Bishop of Rome.
• 10. Saint Mark the first Bishop of Alexan∣dria, and of his successours.
• 11. Notes on the observations of Epiphani∣us, and Saint Hierom, about the Church of Alexandria.
• 12. An observation of Saint Ambrose ap∣plyed unto the former business.
• 13. Of Churches founded by Saint Peter, in Italy, France, Germany, and the Isle of Britain, and of the Bishops in them in∣stituted.

OY 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, [unspec I] It is the observation of Saint Chrysostom, that the Church never thriveth better than in persecutions.* 1.183 And this he speaks, on the dispersion of the Disciples after the martyrdom of Stephen: than which there could not any thing fall out more fortunately, for the advancement

of the Gospel.* 1.184 They which were scattered abroad (saith the holy Text) upon the perse∣cution which arose about Stephen, travelled as far as Phoenice, and Cyprus, and Antioch, preaching the Word to none but the Jews only. At first indeed to none but the Jews alone. The Vision had not yet appeared to Peter, to Authorize his going in unto the Gentiles; nor had Cornelius and his Houshold as yet been made partakers of the Holy Ghost. The Jews were they to whom the promises of God had first been made, who as they were dispersed into many places; so did Gods Word go after them, and found them out, either converting them unto the Faith, or else convincing them of their incre∣dulity. But in no City of the East, were they so thick set, as in Antiochia, the re∣gal seat and City of the Kings of Syria;* 1.185 in which by ancient priviledge first granted by Seleucus Nicanor, they were all free Denizens, and enjoyed all immunities what∣soever with the Greeks and Macedons.* 1.186 This made them plant here in great multi∣tudes, together with their Wives and Children, and so by consequence the greater opportunity was offered for the enlargement of the Church. News hereof being brought unto Hierusalem, and Peace by that time being setled throughout the Churches, S. Peter,* 1.187 as he passed throughout all quarters, is said to have come down unto Antioch also, and to have undertaken the charge thereof, as being the most famous City of the Eastern parts. It's true, the Scriptures tell us nothing of this, but the Fathers do, and negative proofs from Scripture,* 1.188 in a point of History, are of no Authority. Origen calls Ignatius, Episcopum Antiochiae post Petrum secundum, the second that was Bishop of Antioch after Peter; and therefore Peter must of necessary consequence be first Bishop there.* 1.189 Eusebius saith the same with Origen, as to S. Peters being Bishop there, and so doth Felix Pope of Rome, in the fifth Council of Constantinople, Actione prima. But not to trust to consequences only,* 1.190 though those clear enough; Eusebius in his Chronicon saith expresly, Petrus Apostolus Ecclesiam Antiochenam fundavit, ibique Cathedram adep∣tus sedit, that Peter the Apostle founded the Church of Antioch, and sate Bishop there. S. Hierom doth affirm the same,* 1.191 Primum Episcopum Antiochenae Ecclesiae Petrum fuisse, and makes it one of those things which S. Luke omitted. Luke being an attendant of S. Paul in his peregrinations, took not such special and particular notice of S. Peters actions;* 1.192 and therefore his omission of it is no argument that it was not so. More of S. Peters being Bishop of the Church of Antioch, see in the same S. Hierom in his Book de Ecclesiast. Scriptoribus: And in S. Gregories Epistles, lib. 6. ep. 37. Where he is said to have continued Bishop there seven years; as indeed most Authors do agree.

This founding of the Church of Antioch by S. Peter, [unspec II] and his assuming of the Bi∣shoprick or charge thereof,* 1.193 is by Eusebius placed in the fourth year of the 203 Olympiad, which falleth by computation into that 38 year of Christs Nativity, being the fourth year after his Ascension. But then withal, we must restrain S. Peters Bishoprick in Antioch, and his foundation of that Church, only unto the Jewish Congregations there. Preaching unto the Gentiles, was not yet thought lawful. And when it was, it pleased God to make choice of others to promote that work. Whereof when tidings came unto Hierusalem,* 1.194 they sent forth Barnabas that he should go as far as An∣tioch: And when he found the task too great for himself alone, he went to Tarsus, saith the Text, to seek for Saul, whom he brought with him to that City. By these the gaining of the Gentiles in that famous City was begun and finished. In this re∣gard S. Paul is to be reckoned a co-founder at the least of the Church of Antioch; and so Ignatius doth account them in his Epistle to the Magnesians,* 1.195 where he relateth that the Disciples were first called Christians at Antiochia, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Church whereof was founded by Paul and Peter. And this may serve to reconcile the difference which doth occur amongst the ancient Writers about S. Peters next Successor in the See of Antioch.* 1.196 Origen, Chrysostom, Theodoret, and Felix, whom before we spake of, do make Ignatius to be S. Peters next Successor; where by the way we have S. Peters being Bishop there, avowed by Chrysostom and Theodoret into the bargain.* 1.197 And on the other side, Eusebius and S. Hierom place Euodius first, and after his decease, Ignatius; wherein Ignatius doth himself concur with them, counselling or exhorting the Antiochians, to call to mind Euodius that most holy Bishop, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, who first received the government of that Church from the holy Apostles. Now for the reconciliation of this difference, taking it first for granted, as I think we may, that at first there were in Antiochia two several Congregations of converted Christians, the one of Jews,* 1.198 the other of the Gentiles, whereof S. Peter and S. Paul were the se∣veral heads; the Author of the Constitutions ascribed to Clemens (who in a matter of

this nature may well be credited) will give us an handsom hint, informing us that (the Apostles being to betake themselves to their other business, or the business rather of the Lord) S. Peter did ordain Euodius, and S. Paul, Ignatius, to be the Bishops there in their several charges. Upon which ground Baronius doth infer, and not improba∣bly, that the wall of separation being beaten down, and both the Congregations of Antiochia, made into one Church,* 1.199 Ignatius did willingly resign his present interest un∣to Euodius, whom he succeeded also after his decease. But be this how it will, cer∣tain I am that the preferment of Euodius to the See of Antioch, is placed by Eusebius in the 45. year of Christs Nativity; who having sate there six and twenty years, did leave the same unto Ignatius, Anno 71. S. John, and perhaps other of the Apostles be∣ing then alive. More than so, Chrysostom affirms expresly,* 1.200 not only that some of the Apostles were then alive, but that he was made Bishop by them, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and that the hands of the Apostles touched his holy head. And so much for the Bishops of Antioohia, which lived and were co-temporary with the Apostles.

But to go forwards with S. Peter, [unspec III] having thus setled and confirmed the Church of Antioch, and by this Preaching to Cornelius opened a door unto the Gospel in Caesarea, and amongst the Gentiles; he followed on the course of his Apostleship, Preaching unto the Jews dispersed in the Eastern parts, as namely throughout Pon∣tus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, as himself intimates in his first Epistle.* 1.201 And when he was to leave those parts, and make for Italy, he left them not without a Ministery; nor did he leave that Ministery without some Bishops to govern and direct the Flock. The Roman Martyrology doth reckon in these Churches of S. Peters founding, Cornelius, the first fruits of the Gentiles,* 1.202 Quem B. Petrus Episcopali honore sublimavit, made by him Bishop of Caesarea. Metaphrastes, if he may be credited,* 1.203 as in most things, which do not tend to miracles, I think he may, relateth that S. Peter in his peregrination did ordain Bishops in the Churches of Sydon, Berytus, and Laodicea; that he made Marson Bishop of Tripolis, and Prochorus of Nicomedia; and finally, that in the Provinces of Pontus, Cappadocia, and Bithynia, he did not only plant Churches, but he founded Bishopricks. But waving these things as I find them, and the report of Agapetus in the fifth Council of Constantinople, that the first Bishop of Bizantium was of Peters founding, though of unquestionable credit: Let us repair unto the Scrip∣tures.* 1.204 There find we the Apostles stirring up the Pastors to have a care unto the Flock. The Elders which are amongst you I exhort, who am also an Elder, and a witness of the suf∣ferings of Christ, Feed the Flock of God which is among you.* 1.205 Ask Oecumenius who these Presbyters or Elders were, and he will tell you they were Bishops. And then he gives this reason of it, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that Bishops are called Presbyters in the book of Acts. But Oecumenius being of a later standing, may possibly be undervalued when he speaks alone; and therefore we will stare super vias antiquas, enquire amongst the ancients, and ask their judgments in the case. And here we meet with Gregory Nazianzen,* 1.206 who pencelling and de∣scribing a perfect Prelate, makes amongst others, this to be a special quality belonging to him, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, not to constrain their people to the works of piety by force and violence, but to allure them by persuasions. For proof whereof, he instanceth in this present Text, Feed the Flock of Christ which is among you, not by constraint, but willingly, of a ready mind.

But this construction may be verified from the Text it self, [unspec IV] as well as from the Glosses of the ancient Writers▪ and that from three particular words or phrases, that occur therein. For first, Saint Peter calling himself their Fellow Presbyter, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the Greek, shews plainly that they were not simple Presbyters, which he thus exhorteth, but Presbyters invested with some higher dignity, such as had some resemblance of the Apostolical function. In which regard S. John the Apostle in his two last Epistles, calls himself a Presbyter, the Elder, as our English reads it. Which word he used, as Oecumenius hath observed,* 1.207 either because he was grown aged when he wrote the same, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or intimating that he was a Bishop, according as the word Presbyter would bear in those former times. And why not thus, since Beza doth affirm on those words of Saint Peter, Generale esse nomen Presby∣teri,* 1.208 that the name of Presbyter was very general; so general as it seems by him, ut etiam ipsi Apostoli hoc nomine comprehendantur, that even the holy Apostles are com∣prised therein. And therefore Beza being Judge, S. Peter may mean Bishops here, though he calls them Presbyters. And that he meaneth Bishops, may be also gathered

from the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Feed ye the Flock which is among you. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in the Greek not signifying to feed only, and no more than so; but such a feeding as implyeth a rule or governance annexed unto it, which is the proper act of Bishops. Inferiour Presbyters may 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, feed the particular Flock committed to them by the word of Doctrine: The Bishop only may 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 so feed them with the word of Doctrine, as that he also rule them with the rod of Discipline. In this respect as the Apostle joyns the Shepherd and the Bishop in a line together:* 1.209 So primitive Antiquity did arm the Bishop with a Crozier or Pastoral staff, to shew the union of those Offices in the self-same person. But hereof we shall speak more fully in another place: And in∣deed need not speak more of it upon this occasion, considering that there is another word behind in S. Peters Text, which putteth the matter out of question. Feed ye the Flock of God which is among you, saith the Apostle, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, saith the Text, taking the oversight thereof, as our English reads it, doing the Office of a Bishop, as the word doth signifie.* 1.210 The ordinary Presbyters may be called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or Seers if you will, according to the notion of that word, in the first of Samuel; the Bishops are 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, such as do over-see the Seers. So then the Presbyters whom S. Peter speaks of, being such as might 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, both feed and oversee, and govern; it is apparent they were Bishops, and not simple Presbyters.

But in this point Saint Peter shall not go alone; [unspec V] S. Paul will put in for a share, and keep him company; who writing to the Hebrews, even to the very hebrews of Saint Peters Province,* 1.211 doth advise them thus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 &c. Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit your selves, for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account,* 1.212 &c. If you would know of Chrysostom who these Rulers are, he will tell you that they are the Pastors of the Church, whom if you take away from the Flock of Christ, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, you utterly destroy and lay waste the whole.* 1.213 Next ask Theophylact, than whom none ever better scanned that Fathers writings, what he means by Pastors, and he will tell you, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that he speaks of Bishops.* 1.214 The very same saith Oecumenius, noting withal that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which we read submit, doth signifie 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a very punctual and exact obedience. But to go higher yet than so, Ignatius the Apostles Scholler, one that both knew S. Paul, and conversed with him, will tell us that the Rulers. or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which Saint Paul here speaketh of, were no other than Bishops. For laying down this exhortation to the Trallenses, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 be subject to your Bishop, as unto the Lord; he gives the self-same reason of it, which S. Paul here doth, viz. Because he watcheth for your souls, as one that is to render an account to Al∣mighty God. The like we also find in the Canons commonly ascribed to the Apostles, which questionless are very ancient; in which, the obedience and conformity which is there required of the Presbyters and Deacons, to the directions of their Bishop, is grounded on that very reason alledged before. And for the word, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of Saint Paul, it is not such a stranger in the writings of the elder times, but that they use it for a Bishop; as may appear by that of the Historian, where he calls Polycarpus Bishop of the Church of Smyrna,* 1.215 the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of that Church; Ignatius writing, as he saith, not only to the Church of Smyrna, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 but also unto Polycarpus Bishop of the same.

Where lest it may be thought that the preposition doth add unto the nature of the word,* 1.216 we find the same Historian speaking of the same Polycarpus in another place; where he gives notice of an Epistle written in the name of the Church of Smyrna; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, of which this Polycarpus had the Government, and a Bishop doubtless. In the which place 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, is conform most fully to the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of Saint Paul, differing no otherwise than the verb and participle.

Now those which in the Greek are called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, [unspec VI] in all the old Translations that I have met with, are called Praepositi; Obedite Praepositis vestris, as the Latines read it; and amongst them Praepositi are taken generally for the same with Bishops.* 1.217 S. Cyprian thus, Ob hoc Ecclesiae praepositum prosequitur; for this cause doth the enemy pursue him that is set over the Church, that the Governour thereof being once removed, he may with greater violence destroy the same.* 1.218 More clearly in another place, What danger is not to be feared, saith he, by offending the Lord, when some of the Priests not remembring their place, neither thinking that they have a Bishop set over them, challenge the whole govern∣ment unto themselves, Cum contumeliâ & contemptu Praepositi, even with the reproach and contempt of the Prelate,* 1.219 or him that is set over them? Most clearly yet, where speaking of the insolency of a Deacon towards his Bishop, he makes Episcopus and Praepositus to

be one same thing; willing the Deacon, Episcopo, Praeposito suo plena humilitate satis∣facere, with all humility to satisfie his Bishop, or Praepositus. Saint Austin speaks as fully to this purpose, as Saint Cyprian did, Ad hoc enim speculatores,* 1.220 i.e. populorum Prae∣positi in Ecclesiis constituti sunt, &c. For this end are Bishops (for speculatores and Epi∣scopi, are the same Office, though in divers words) I mean the Prelates or Praepositi, or∣dained in the Churches, that they should not spare to rebuke sin. In the same work De civita∣te, he speaks plainer yet. For speaking of these words of the Divine, I saw seats,* 1.221 and some sitting on them, and judgment was given, he expounds it thus. This is not to be understood, saith he, of the last Judgment: Sed sedes praepositorum, & ipsi Praepositi intelligendi sunt, per quos Ecclesia nunc gubernatur, but the seats of the Praepositi, and the Praepositi themselves, by whom the Church is now governed (and they were Bishops doubtless in Saint Augustines time) must be understood. More of this word who list to see, may find it in that learned Tract of Bishop Bilson, entituled,* 1.222 The perpetual Government of Christs Church; who is copious in it. Beza indeed, the better to bear off this blow, hath turned Praepositos into Ductores; and instead of Governours, hath given us Leaders. Where if he mean such Leaders, as the word importeth, Leaders of Armies, such as Command in chief, Lieutenants General, he will get little by the bargain. But if he mean by Leaders, only guides and conducts, Paraeus,* 1.223 though he follow him in his Translation, will leave him to himself in his Exposition: who by Ductores un∣derstandeth Ecclesiae Pastores & gubernatores, the Pastors and Governours of the Church. Neither can Beza possibly deny, but that those here are called Ductores,* 1.224 qui alibi Episcopi vocantur, which elsewhere are entituled Bishops. But where he doth ob∣serve, that because the Apostle speaketh of Praepositi in the plural number,* 1.225 therefore Episcopal jurisdiction was not then in use; it being indeed against the ancient course and Canons, to have two Bishops in one Church: there could not any thing be spoken, (to pretermit the incivility of his expression) more silly and unworthy of so great a Clerk. For who knows not that the Jews being dispersed into many Provinces and Cities, must have several Churches; and therefore several Bishops, or Praepositos, to bear Rule over them?

This business being thus passed over, [unspec VII] and the Churches of Saint Peters planting in the Eastern parts, being thus left unto the care and charge of several Bishops: we will next follow him into the West. And there we find him taking on him∣self the care of the Church of Rome, or rather, of the Church of God in Rome, con∣sisting for the most part then of converted Jews. The current of antiquity runs so clear this way, that he must needs corrupt the Fountains, who undertakes to trou∣ble or disturb the stream. His being there, and founding of that Church, his being Bishop there, and suffering there an ignominious, yet a glorious death, for the sake of Christ; are such noted Truths, that it were labour lost to insist upon them. Only I shall direct the Reader to such pregnant places in the most ancient and incor∣rupted Writers, as may give satisfaction in those points to any one that will take pains to look upon them. And first to look upon the Greeks, he may find Papias and Clemens, ancient Writers both, alledged to this purpose by Eusebius Hist. Ec∣cles. l. 2. c. 14. Caius, & Dionysius Bishops of Corinth, both of good antiquity, al∣ledged in the same book, cap. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Eusebius speaking for himself, not only in the 13. Chap. of the same book also, but also in his Chronicon, in which he notes the year of his first coming to that City, to be the 44. after Christs Nativity. See to this purpose also, Saint Chrysostom in his Homily De Petro & Paulo, Saint Cyril of Alexandria, in his Epistle to Pope Celestine: Theodoret, Sozomen, and others. Next for the Latins, there is hardly any but saith somewhat in it: whereof see Irenaeus l. 3. c. 3. Tertullian in his book de praescript. adv. haeret. Lactant. lib. 4. cap. 21. Optatus, lib. 2. contr. Parmen. Hierom in his Tract. De Eccl. Scriptoribus, Saint Austin in E∣pist. 165. and other places, not to descend to later Writers of the Latin Churches, whose interest it may seem to be. To close this point, Saint Austin,* 1.226 whom I named last, shall speak once for all, who reckoning up the Bishops in the Church of Rome, thus begins his Catalogue: Si enim, &c. If the succession of the Bishops there be a thing considerable, quanto certius, & verè salubriter ab ipso Petro numeramus? how much more certainly, and assuredly do we begin the same with Peter, who bare the figure of the whole Church? And then goes on, Petro successit Linus, Linus succeeded Peter, Cle∣mens him, and so to Anastasius, who then held the See.

Nor can it be replyed that Peter took the Church of Rome into his Apostolical care, and had not the Episcopal charge thereof, as some now suppose. [unspec VIII] The Tables

of succession make that clear enough. Saint Peter the Apostle could have no succes∣sours, but the Bishop might. Linus, or whosoever else succeeded, nor did, nor could pretend succession to the preheminences, and miraculous priviledges, which were re∣quired necessarily unto the making of an Apostle, challenge an interest by succession, in his Pastoral Office they both might and did. The Writers of all ages since do af∣ford them that. Only the difference is amongst them, who was the first that did suc∣ceed him in his Pastoral charge. St. Austin gives it unto Linus, as before we saw: next Clemens,* 1.227 and then Anacletus. Irenaeus doth agree with Austin, placing Linus first, but placing Anacletus second, and then Clemens third: and so doth Epiphanius also. Optatus reckoneth them, as before in Austin. Saint Hierom sometimes ranketh them, as Irenaeus, and Epiphanius did, Linus, Cletus, Clemens; and sometimes placeth Clemens first, as Tertullian, and plerique Latinorum, most of the ancient Latin Writers had done before. I know there is much pains taken to compose this difference a∣mongst our Antiquaries, those most especially of the Papal party. But in my mind there cannot be a better course taken to effect the same, than that which was obser∣ved before in the case of Antioch. And to effect this composition, Ignatius, and some other Fathers give a ground as probable, as that which was laid down before in the former business.* 1.228 For first it is affirmed by Irenaeus, that S. Paul had as great an interest in the foundation of the Church of Rome, as Saint Peter had, A duobus Apo∣stolis Petro & Paulo Romae fundatae & constitutae Ecclesiae: as his own words are. The like saith Epiphanius in another language,* 1.229 making both of them Bishops of that Church. Next it is said expresly by Ignatins, who might well speak on certain knowledg living in those times, that Anacletus (for I conceive that Cletus, and Anacletus were the same) was Deacon to S. Peter, and Linus, Deacon to S. Paul, who doth indeed make mention of him in his second Epistle unto Timothy. This ground thus laid, why may we not conceive, as before in Antioch, that in the first planting of the Church of Rome, there were two several Churches, or congregations; that of the Circumcision being collect∣ed by Saint Peter, that of the Gentiles first drawn together by Saint Paul; each of them being Bishop, or chief Pastor of their Congregations? Secondly, that when the two Apostles perceived the time of their sufferings to draw near. Peter ordained Anacletus Bishop of the Churches of the Circumcision, and that Paul did commit to Linus the government of the Churches of the Gentiles: both whom they had em∣ployed before as Deputies and Substitutes to attend these charges, whilst they them∣selves did travel to and fro, as occasion was, and the necessities of the Church re∣quired. Thirdly and lastly, that Linus being dead, Clemens (who had before been specially designed by Saint Peter to possess his place) succeeded Bishop of the Churches of the Gentiles there, who finally surviving Cletus, or Anacletus, call him which you will, and the division between Jew and Gentile being worn away, united the two Churches in his person, as the sole Bishop of the whole. And this I am the rather induced to think, because that Epiphanius making up a Catalogue of the Popes of Rome,* 1.230 first joyns together Peter and Paul, next coupleth with the like conjunction Linus and Cletus: and after brings in Clemens, Euaristus, Alexander, &c. in a line successively. And yet the Tables of succession may well stand as they have done hi∣therto; first Linus, after Cletus, and thirdly Clemens: because that Linus dying first, left Cletus in possession of the Pastoral charge, and Cletus dying before Clemens, left him the sole surviver of the three, which possibly may be the reason why many of the Latins reckon Clemens for the first Bishop after Peter: whom they conceive to be sole Bishop of that Church: as indeed it was, before there was a Church of Gen∣tiles founded in that famous City. For being formerly designed by Saint Peter to be his Successour, and afterward enjoying the whole charge alone, as Peter for a season did: it might not seem improper to report him for the second Bishop; that is, the second of the whole. And then again, Clemens is placed by some next and immediately after Linus, whose successor he was in the direct line, as Bishop of the more famous Church, viz. of the Gentiles; and by some also after Cletus, whom he succeeded at the last, in the line collateral. However, be this so, or not, we have three Bishops sit∣ting in the Church of Rome between the martyrdom of Peter, and the death of John: first, Linus, who held the same twelve years: Cletus or Anacletus, who sur∣vived, and held twelve years more: and Clemens, finally, who suffered martyrdom at Rome, the next year after the decease of Saint John at Ephesus.

I take it then for a most manifest and undoubted truth, [unspec IX] not only that Saint Peter was at Rome, but that he also took upon him the Episcopal charge, and was the

Bishop of that City. The Arguments devised in this later Age to evince the con∣trary, do nothing less in my opinion, than prove the point for which they were first devised. For first it is objected, that the Episcopal charge requiring residence, could not consist with that of an Apostle, who was to be perpetually in motion. Which argument, if it be of any force, will militate as well against Saint James his being Bishop of Herusalem, as against Saint Peters being Bishop of the Church of Rome. And then will Calvin come very opportunely in to help us,* 1.231 who speaking of S. James his constant residence in Hierusalem, doth resolve it thus. Quanquam com∣mune illi cum reliquis collegis mandatum erat, &c. Although, saith he, the Lords Commandment of preaching to all Nations, was common unto him with the residue of the Lords Apostles, yet I conceive, that they did so divide the charge amongst them, as to leave him always at Hierusa∣lem, whither such store of strangers did use continually to resort. Id enim perinde erat ac si Evangelium longè latéque promulgasset in locis remotis; for that, saith he, was as sufficient, as if he had promulgated, or preached the Gospel in the parts remote. This if it may be used for James, will serve for Peter. Assuredly there was a greater confluence of all sorts of strangers to the City of Rome, than used to be unto Hierusalem: and there∣fore Peter being there, might spread abroad the Gospel with the greater speed; and with no less success than those others did, who did not fix themselves in a certain sta∣tion. But whereas Calvin doth object in another place,* 1.232 that Saint Paul writing to the Romans, and saluting many of the Saints there, makes no speech of Peter; and that writing many of his Epistles from the City of Rome, he makes no mention of him neither: this may infer indeed, that Saint Peter was then absent, when those things were done, as one that had not so immured himself in the walls of Rome, but that he travelled up and down in several quarters of the world: doing sometimes the Office of an Apostle, discharging otherwhiles the place and function of a Bishop. All the Epistles of Saint Paul which bear date from Rome, were written in the first two years of his being there: and therefore any argument derived from thence must be very weak, either to prove that Peter never was at Rome, or never Bishop of that place: being so many ancient Writers do affirm them both. And yet I would not have the Papists think that this makes any more for the Popes supremacy, because he sits in Peters seat: than it did make for Vibius Rufus to attain Tullies eloquence,* 1.233 or Caesars power, because he married Tullies Widow, and bought Caesars Chair; though the poor Gentleman, as the story telleth us, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 did presume on both.

But to go on, the Church of Christ being thus setled by Saint Peter, [unspec X] both in Rome, and Antioch: his next great care is for Alexandria, the great and most renowned City in the parts of Africa: that so there might be no prime City in all the habitable World, to which the Gospel was not preached. In the discharge of this great bu∣siness, was Saint Mark employed; a principal and constant follower of Saint Peters, who mentioneth him in his Epistle by the name of Son.* 1.234 The Church which is at Babylon saluteth you, and so doth Marcus my son. The planting of this Church is thus remembred by Eusebius, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c.* 1.235 It is affirmed, saith he, that Mark did first (of all Christs followers) pass into Egypt, and there promulge and preach the Gospel, which before he writ; and that he first did plant the Church of Alexandria: in which his undertakings had so good success, that on his very first endeavours, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as the Author hath it, great multitudes both of Men and Women did believe in Christ; his holiness, and strict behaviour gaining much upon them. This Church as he first founded in the faith of Christ, so did he take upon himself the charge thereof, and became Bishop of the same. This witnesseth S. Hierom of him, Marcus interpres Petri Apostoli, & Alexandrinae Ecclesiae primus Episeopus:* 1.236 that Mark the interpreter of Saint Peter, was the first Bishop of the Church of A∣lexandria. The same he also doth affirm in his Epistle to Euagrius; whereof more anon. And when Eusebius doth inform us,* 1.237 that in the eighth year of the Empe∣rour Nero, Anianus a right godly Man, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as the story calls him, succeeded Mark the Evangelist in Alexandria: he doth infer ex con∣sequenti, that Mark was Bishop there before him. So that is seemeth he sat there 19. years by this account. For he came hither Anno 45. being the third of Claudins Cae∣sar; and finished his course in the eighth of Nero, which was the 64. of our Re∣deemer. Finally, Anianus having continued Bishop here 23 years, died in the 4th.* 1.238 year of Domitianus, being Anno Chr. 87. and had Abilius to succeed him: after whom Cerdo did succeed, in the year 100. what time Abilius left this World, S. John the Apostle

being yet alive. So that there were four Bishops of Alexandria succeeding one ano∣ther in that weighty charge, during the lives of the Apostles: a pregnant evidence that they both instituted and approved the calling.

Now for the Church of Alexandria, [unspec XI] there are some things observed by the Fathers, which are worth our noting, and may give great light to the present business; It is observed by Epiphanius,* 1.239 that Alexandria never had two Bishops, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as had other Cities: which words not rightly understood have made some conceive, that anciently Bishops were the same with Presbyters, it being against the usual custom to have two Bishops in one Church or City. But if we look considerately upon Epi∣phanius, there is no such matter: all that he drives at being this, that whereas in most other Churches, for the preventing of schisms and factions amongst the people, in the electing of their Bishops, it had been ordinary for the Bishop yet in place, to conse∣crate some one or other that should assist him whilst he lived, and succeed after his de∣cease: only the Church of Alexandria never had that custom. And they that had that custom,* 1.240 as it seems, did not like it well: for whereas Valerius Bishop of Hippo, out of a vehement desire to have S. Austin his successour, did consecrate or ordain him Bishop, whilst as himself was yet alive. Saint Austin was resolved for his part not to do the like: it being a thing prohibited by the Nicene Council. Quod ergo repre∣hensum est in me, noli reprehendi in filio meo, as he there resolveth. So that the place in Epiphanius tendeth unto this alone, viz. to shew the reason why Athanasius could not succeed Alexander in that See, though by him designed: which was, that he being yet alive,* 1.241 it was against the custom of that Church to ordain another. Saint Hierom, secondly, observeth, that the Presbyters of Alexandria, unum ex se electum in excel∣siori gradu collocatum Episcopum nominabant, did use to chuse one from amongst them∣selves, whom being placed in a more eminent degree, than any of the rest, they cal∣led a Bishop. And this saith he, continued in that Church, à Marco Evangelista, ad Heraclam & Dionysium Episcopos: from the time of Mark the Evangelist until the Bi∣shopricks of Heraclas and Dionysius.* 1.242 Some hereupon infer, that the persons who brought in the imparity of Ministers into the Church, were not the Apostles, but the Presbyters. An inference as faulty, as was that before. All that Saint Hierom means is this, that from the time of Mark, till the days of Heraclas and Dionysius, the Pres∣byters of Alexandria had no other Bishop than one whom they had chosen out of their own body: just as a man may say, on the like occasion, that from the first foundation till the time of Sir H, Savil, the Colledg of Eaton never had a Provost but one,* 1.243 whom they had chosen out of their own society. Now Heraclas before he was ordained Bishop was not a Presbyter of that Church, although a Reader in the Schools of that famous City; and belike Dionysius also was. And therefore it is well observed by the Cardinal; that Hierom writing to Euagrius relateth, quid in ea Ec∣clesia usque ad haec Dionysii tempora in electione Episcoporum agi consueverit:* 1.244 what was the usage of the Church of Alexandria in the election of their Bishops, until the times of Dionysus. However we have gained thus much by Hierom, that from Mark down∣ward till those times, and a long time after, there wanted not a Bishop, properly so called,* 1.245 in that famous Church: and therefore sure they came not first into the Church, Diaboli instinctu, by the Devils instinct. as he elsewhere saith.

There is another observation in the Commentaries ascribed to Ambrose, [unspec XII] which having some resemblance unto that before, and a like sinister use being made there∣of: I shall here lay down: and after give some Annotations on it to explain the place.* 1.246 The Author of those Commentaries affirmeth, that Timothy whom Paul crea∣ted Presbyter, was by him called a Bishop, because the first Presbyters were called Bishops: it being the custom of the Church (for so I think the sense must be made up) ut rece∣dente eo sequens ei succederet; that he [the first] departing, the next in order should succeed. But being it was found that the following Presbyters were utterly unworthy of so high preferment, that course was altered; and it was provided by a Council, ut non ordo, sed meritum crearet Episcopum, &c. that merit, and not seniority should raise a man, he being appointed by the suffrages of many Priests, to be a Bishop, lest an unfit person rashly should usurp the place, and so become a publick scandal. These are the Authors words,* 1.247 be he who he will. And from hence Beza doth collect that Bishops differed not from Presbyters in the Apostles times; that there was only in every place a Pre∣sident of the Presbytery, who called them together, and porposed things needful for their consideration; that this priority went round by course, every one holding it in his turn for a week, or more, according as the Priests in the Jewish Temple had their

weekly courses; and finally, that this Apostolical and primitive order was after chang∣ed, upon the motives and inducements before remembred.* 1.248 Some of our modern Wri∣ters against Episcopacy have gone more warily to work than so, affirming from those words of Ambrose (or whosoever was the Author) that this Rectorship, or priority was devolved at first from one Elder to another by succession; when he who was in the place was re∣moved, the next in order amongst the Elders succeeded; and that this course was after changed the better to keep out unworthy men, it being made a matter of election, and not a matter of succession. These men come neer the point in their Exposition, though they keep far enough in the Application, inferring hence that the imparity of Ministers came in other∣wise than by divine Authority. For by comparing this of Ambrose, with that before mentioned out of Hierom, the meaning of the Author will be only this, that as in some places the Presbyters elected one of their own Presbytery to be their Bishop; so for preventing of Ambition, and avoiding Faction, they did agree amongst them∣selves, ut uno recedente, that as the place did vaike by death or deprivation, by resig∣nation, cession, banishment, or any other means whatever, the Senior of the whole Presbytery should succeed therein; as the Lord Mayor is chosen for his year in London. But after upon sight of those inconveniences, which did thence arise, it was thought fit in their election of the person, rather to look upon his Merit than his Seniority. So that for all this place of Ambrose (were those Comments his) the Bishop may enjoy a fixt preheminence, and hold it by divine Authority, not by humane Ordinances.

But to return unto Saint Peter, and to the Churches by him planted, [unspec XIII] and founded by him in Episcopacy in these Western parts; I shall in part rely on the Authority of the Martyrologie of the Church of Rome; though so fat only, and no further, as it is backed by venerable Bede, and Ʋsuardus, ancient Writers both, the latest living in the year 800. and besides them, in some particulars by other Authors of far more An∣tiquity.* 1.249 And these, for better methods sake, we will behold according to the several Countries, into which S. Peter either went himself, or sent forth his Disciples to them, to preach the Gospel. And first for Italy, besides the Church of Rome before re∣membred. We find Epaphroditus, (not he that is commemorated by S. Paul,* 1.250 in his Epistle to the Philippians, as Baronius witnesseth against himself) à beato Petro Apostolo Episcopus illius Civitatis ordinatus, made Bishop by S. Peter of Tarracina, of old called Anxur: Pancratius made by S. Peter, Bishop of Tauromenium, in the Isle of Sicily, as the Greeks also do affirm in their Menologia: Marcianus Bishop of Syracusa, to whom the said Menologies do bear record also: Hermagoras a Disciple of S. Mark, the first Bishop of Aquileia, now in the Signeurie of Venice: Panlinus the first Bishop of Luques in Tuscanie: Apollinaris, created by S. Peter the first Bishop of Ravenna, in praise of whom Chrysologus, one of his Successors, and an holy Father, hath composed a Pa∣negyrick: Marcus ordained Bishop of Atina, at S. Peters first coming into Italy:* 1.251 And last of all, Prosdocimus the first Bishop of Padua à Beato Petro ordinatus, made Bishop thereof by S. Peter. Next to pass over into France, we find there Xystus the first Bishop of Rhemes, and Fronto Bishop of Perigort [Petragorricis;] ordained both by this Apostle: As also Julianus the first Bishop of (Mayne Cononiensium in the Latine) of his Ordination. And besides these, we read that Trophimus, once one of S. Pauls Dis∣ciples, was by S. Peter made the first Bishop of Arles. And this besides the Martyro∣logies, and other Authors cited by Baronius in his Annotations, appeareth by that me∣morable controversie in the time of Pope Leo, before the Bishop of Vienna, the chief City of Daulphine, and him of Arles, for the place and dignity of Metropolitan. In prosecution of the which, it is affirmed by the Suffragans,* 1.252 or Com-provincial Bishops of the Province of Arles: Quod prima inter Gallias Arelatensis Civitas missum à Beatissimo Petro Apostolo, Sauctum Trophimum, habere meruit Sacerdotem, that first of all the Cities of Gaul, that of Arles did obtain the happiness to have Saint Trophimus for their Bi∣shop, (for so Sacerdos must be read in that whole Epistle) sent to them from the most blessed Apostle S. Peter, to preach the Gospel. For Spain, we find this testimony once for all, that Ctesiphon, Torquatus, Secundus, Caecilius, Judaletius, Hesychius,* 1.253 and Euphrasius; Romae à Sanctis Apostolis Episcopi ordinati; & ad praedicandum verbum Dei in Hispanias directi: Having been ordained Bishops at Rome by the Apostles, (viz. S. Peter and S. Paul) were sent unto Spain to preach the Gospel; and in most likeli∣hood were Bishops of those Cities, in which they suffered, the names whereof occur in the Martyrologie. If we pass further into Germany, we may there see Eucherius, one of S. Peters Disciples also, by him employed to preach the Gospel to that Nation; which having done with good effect in the City of Triers, Primus ejusdem Civitatis

Episcopus,* 1.254 he was made the first Bishop of that City. And unto this Methodius also doth attest,* 1.255 as he is cited by Marianus Scotus, who tells us, that after he had held the Bishoprick 23 years, Valerio Trevericae Ecclesiae culmen dereliquit, he left the govern∣ment of that Church unto Valerius, who together with Maternus, (both being Dis∣ciples of Saint Peper) did attend him thither; and that Maternus after fifteen years did succeed Valerius, continuing Bishop there 40 years together. I should much wrong our part of Britain, should I leave out that, as if neglected by the Apostle, con∣cerning which we are informed by Metaphrastes (whose credit hath been elsewhere vindicated) that this Apostle coming into Britain,* 1.256 and tarrying there a certain time, and enlightning many with the word of grace, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, did constitute Churches, and or∣dain Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons in the same. Which action as he placeth in the twelfth year of Nero, being the 67. of our Redeemer; so he professeth, that he had his information out of some writings of Eusebius, which have not come unto our hands, but with a great deal more of that Authors works, have perished in the ruins and wrack of time. Nor is it strange that the Apostle should make so many of his Dis∣ciples Bishops, before or shortly after they were sent abroad to gain the nations to the Faith,* 1.257 that being the usual course in the like imployments, as may appear by Austins being consecrated Bishop, immediately after his first coming into England. The rea∣son was, as I conceive it, that if God prospered their endeavours with desired suc∣cess, they might be furnished with a power of ordaining Presbyters for their assistance in that service. And so much for the Churches planted by Saint Peter, and by his Disciples.

CHAP. IV. The Bishoping of Timothy and Titus, and others of Saint Pauls Disciples.

• 1. The Conversion of Paul, and his ordaining to the place of an Apostle.
• 2. The Presbyters created by Saint Paul, Act. 14. of what sort they were.
• 3. Whether the Presbyters or Presbytery did lay on hands with Paul, in any of his Ordinations.
• 4. The people had no voice in the Election of their Presbyters in these early times.
• 5. Bishops not founded by S. Paul at first, in the particular Churches by him planted, and upon what reasons.
• 6. The short time of the Churches of S. Pauls plantation, continued without Bishops over them.
• 7. Timothy made Bishop of Ephesus, by S. Paul, according to the general consent of Fathers.
• 8. The time when Timothy was first made Bishop, according to the Holy Scripture.
• 9. Titus made Bishop of the Cretans, and the truth verified herein by the ancient Writers.
• 10. An Answer unto such Objections as have been made against the Subscription of the Epistle unto Titus.
• 11. The Bishopping of Dionysius the Areo∣pagite, Aristarchus, Gaius, Epaphro∣ditus, Epaphras, and Archippus.
• 12. As also of Silus, Sosthenes, Sosipater, Crescens, and Aristobulus.
• 13. The Office of a Bishop, not incompatible with that of an Evangelist.

WE are now come unto S. Paul, [unspec I] and to the Churches by him planted, where we shall meet with clearer evidence from Scripture than before we had. A man that did at first most eagerly afflict the poor Church of Christ; as if it were the destiny not of David only, but also of the Son of David, to be persecuted by the hands of Saul.* 1.258 But as the Rhemists well observe, that the contention between Paul and Barnabas, fell out unto the great increase of Christianity: So did this persecution raised by Saul, fall out unto the great improvement of the Gospel. For by this means, the Disciples being scattered and dispersed abroad, the Gospel was by them disseminated in all the parts and Countreys where they came; and Saul himself being taken off, even in the middle of his fury, became the greatest instrument of Gods power and glory in the converting of the Gentiles. For presently upon his own Conversion, we

find him Preaching in the Synagogues of Damascus,* 1.259 thence taking a long journey into Arabia, from thence returning to Hierusalem, afterwards travelling towards Tarsus his own native soyl, and thence brought back to Antio••h, by the means of Barnabas. And all this while I look upon him as an Evangelist only, a constant and a zealous Preacher of the Gospel of Christ, in every Region where he travelled••. His calling unto the Apostleship, was not until the Holy Ghost had said unto the Prophets Lucius,* 1.260 Simeon, and Manahen, ministring then in Antiochia, Separate mihi Barnabam & Saulum; separate me Barnabas and Saul, for the work whereunto I have called them. An extraordi∣nary call, and therefore done by extraordinary means, and Ministers. For being the persons here employed in this Ordination, neither were Apostles, nor yet advanced for ought we find, unto the estate and honour of Episcopacy, it most be reckoned amongst those Extraordinaries which God pleased to work, in, and about the calling of this blessed Apostle. Of which we may affirm with Chrysostom, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,* 1.261 that of the things which did befall S. Paul in his whole vocation, there was nothing ordinary, but every part was acted by the hand of God. God in his extraordinary works ties not himself to ordinary means and courses, but takes such ways, and doth imploy such instruments as himself best pleaseth, for the more evident demonstration of his power and glory. So that however Simeon, Manahen, and Lucius did lay hands upon him; yet being the call and designation was so mira∣culous, he might well say that he was made an Apostle neither of men, nor by men. but of Jesus Christ and God the Father. Chrysostom so expounds the place, Not of Men, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,* 1.262 so to make it manifest, that he received not his call from them; not by men; because he was not sent by them, but by the Spirit. As for the work, to which he was thus separated by the Lord, ask the said Father what it was, and he will tell you 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that it was the office of an Apostle; and that he was ordained an Apostle here, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that he might Preach the Gospel with the greater power. Ask who it was that did ordain him, and he will tell you, that howsoever Manahen, Lucius and Simeon, did lay hands upon him, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, yet he received his Ordination by the Holy Ghost. And certainly, that he had not the Apostleship before, may be made manifest by that which followed after. For we do not find in all the story of his Acts, that either he ordained Presbyters, or gave the Holy Ghost, or wrought any miracles, which were the signs of his Apostleship, before this solemn Ordination,* 1.263 or imposition of the hands of the said three Prophets; as afterwards we find he did in several places of that book, and shall now shew (as it relates unto our present business) in that which fol∣loweth.

Paul being thus advanced by God the Father, and his Son Jesus Christ, [unspec II] to the high place of an Apostle, immediately applyeth himself unto the same: Preaching the Word with power, and miracles, in the Isle of Cyprus,* 1.264 from thence proceeding to Pamphylia and other Provinces of the lesser Asia, every where gaining Souls to Almigh∣ty God. Having spent three years in those parts of Asia, and planted Churches in a great part thereof, he had a mind to go again to Antioch,* 1.265 from whence be had been re∣commended to the grace of God, for the work which he had fulsilled. But fearing lest the Do∣ctrine he had Preached amongst them, might either be forgotten, or produce no profit, if there were none left to attend that service: Before he went, he thought it fitting to found a Ministery amongst them, in their several Churches. To this end, They (i.e. He and Barnabas) ordained them Presbyters in every Church, with prayer and fasting;* 1.266 and that being done, they recommended him unto the Lord, in whom they believed. This is the first Ordination which we find of Presbyters in holy Scripture; though doubt∣less there were many before this time. The Church could neither be instructed, nor consist at all, without an ordinary Minister left amongst the people, for the Admini∣stration of the Word and Sacraments. However, this being as I said, the first record thereof in holy Scripture; we will consider hereupon, first to what Office they were called, which are here called Presbyters: Secondly, by whom they were Ordained: And thirdly, by what means they were called unto it. First, for the Office what it was, I find some difference amongst Expositors, as well new as old. Beza conceives the word in a general sense, and to include at once, Pastors and Deacons, and who∣ever else were set apart for the rule and government of the Churches to them com∣mitted.* 1.267 Presbyteros, i.e. Pastores, Diaconos, & alios Ecclesiae gubernationi praefectos, as his own words are. Here we have pastors, Deacons, Governours, included in this one word Presbyters. Ask Lyra who those Governours were,* 1.268 which Beza calls prae∣fecti

in a general name, and he will tell you they were Bishops. Nomine Presbyterorum hic intelliguntur etiam alii Ecclesiae Ministri; ut Episcopi & Diaconi: Under the name of Presbyters, saith he, are comprehended also other Ecclesiastical Ministers, as Bishops and Deacons.* 1.269 The ordinary gloss agrees herewith, as to that of Bishops; and gives this reason for the same, Illo autem tempore ejusdem erant nominis Episcopi & Presbyteri, that in that time Bishops and Presbyters were called by the same name.* 1.270 And Oecume∣nius holds together with them, as to that of Deacons; nothing that Paul and Barnabas had Epifcopal Authority, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in that they did not only ordain Deacons, but also Presbyters. So that it seemeth Saint Paul provided here against all occasions, fetling the Churches by him planted in so sure a way, that there was no∣thing left at random, which either did relate to government, or point of Doctrine. And yet if any shall contend, that those who here are called Presbyters, were but simply such, according to the notion of that word, as it is now used; I shall not much insist upon it. I only shew what other Authors have affirmed herein; and so leave it off.

The next thing here to be considered, [unspec III] is who they were that were the Agents in this Ordination. Cum constituissent illis, when they had Ordained; and they, is there a relative, and points to Paul and Barnabas, mentioned v. 20. They preached the Gospel, they returned to Lystra, and finally they here Ordained. Of any one that laid hands with them on these Presbyters heads, which was the ceremony by them used in this Ordination (as the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, doth plainly manifest) ne My Lucilianum, not a word in Scripture. Indeed it cannot be conceived that in those places wherein there were no men in Sacred Orders, any should joyn with the Apostles in that sacred action. So that the Presbyters, which were here ordained, could have no other hands laid on them than those of Paul and Barnabas, if they joyned together; and did not rather severally and apart perform that ceremony. And if that the Apostles by the imposition of their own hands only, could perform it now; how came they to be shortned after? how came they so devested of that sacred priviledge, as to want others to be joyned with them, and not to make a Presbyter without the co-assistancy of the Presbytery? The Holy Ghost was no less powerful in them after this, than it had been formerly; neither did Paul or want, or crave the help of any, in giving of the Holy Ghost on the like occasions, in the times that followed. Certain I am,* 1.271 when Paul was at Ephesus, though Timothy and others were then present with him, yet none but he laid hands upon the twelve Disciples: And yet upon the laying on of his hands, The Holy Ghost came on them, and they spake with tongues and prophesied. Which if it were an Act of Ordination,* 1.272 as Beza thinks, and it is likely so to be, be∣cause the Text saith that they spake with tongues and prophesied; then have we here more Presbyters created by laying on of Pauls hands only, without help of others. As for that passage in the first Epistle to Timothy,* 1.273 wherein the Presbytery may be thought to lay hands upon him; let it be ballanced with another in the second Epistle, where the Apostle doth assume the whole performance to himself, as his proper act; and then the difference which appears will be quickly ended. If Timothy received those gifts which did enable him for the Holy Ministery, by laying on of Pauls hands only, as it seems he did; what interest could the Presbytery challenge in that sacred action? If he received it joyntly from the Presbytery, what influence had Saint Pauls hands on him more than all the rest? Assuredly Saint Pauls hands were not grown so impotent, that they needed help; or that he could not give the graces of the Holy Ghost, by laying on his own hands only, as he had done formerly. And therefore if the Presbytery did concur herein, it was not that the business could not be performed without them, but either to declare the good affections which they did bear unto the person, or to ex∣press their joyful approbation of his calling to that sacred function,* 1.274 of whom so many Prophesies had gone out before; or finally to contribute their prayers and blessings to the solemnity of so grave and great a work, And so, I think, the business will be best made up, if Paul be suffered to enjoy the honour of giving unto Timothy, by the imposition of his hands, the gifts and graces of the Spirit; and the Presbytery be per∣mitted not to want their share in the performance of the outward ceremony. Cer∣tainly that the power of Ordination was in one alone, that is to say, in the Apostle, is affirmed by Calvin.* 1.275 Who having canvassed the point, doth resolve at last, Ʋnum tantum fuisse qui manus imponeret: Which is indeed the safest tenet, and most agreeable unto Antiquity.* 1.276 And therefore Estius, in my mind, did resolve it well, when he did thus divide the business: Ceremoniam impositionis manuum, à pluribus fuisse adhibitam;

sed solum Paulum ea peregisse, quae [Sacramento] erant substantialia. Unless perhaps we may conceive, as perhaps we may, that Timothy received two Ordinations; the one unto the Office of a Presbyter, in which the Presbytery might concur as to the out∣ward pomp or ceremony; the other to the function of a Bishop, in which, because the Presbyters might not concur, no not so much as to the outward act or ceremony, he was Ordained by laying on of Pauls hands only.

The last thing offer'd to consideration, [unspec IV] is the election of the persons which are here ordained: which some refer unto the people: Concerning that the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which Saint Luke here useth, doth signifie a popular manner of election, used by the holding up of hands. Ortum est hoc verbum ex Groecorum consuetudine,* 1.277 qui porrectis manibus suffragia ferebant, as Beza notes it on the place; who hereupon translates the word, Cum per suffragia creassent, wherein he hath been followed by some Translators of our Bibles, who express it thus, When they had created Elders by Election. But what∣soever use the word might have in the old Greek Writers, assuredly, it either had no such use now; or if it had, it quite excludes the people of those Churches from having any hand in this Election. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, however used amongst the Grecians, to signifie the approbation of the people, testifyed by the holding up of their hands; yet in the Church-construction it signifyeth Ordination, done by the laying on of hands. And this, to save the labour of a further search, is very throughly avouched by Calvin,* 1.278 where he acknowledgeth, that amongst Ecclesiastical Writers, the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, was used pro solenni ordinationis ritu, for the solemn ceremony of Ordination, which is in holy Scripture called Imposition of hands. Particular instances hereof, he that lists to see, may find them gathered to his hand in the learned work of Bishop Bilson,* 1.279 before remembred. But whereas Calvin hence collecteth, that Paul and Barnabus permitted the Election of these Presbyters to the common suffrage of the people, and that them∣selves did only preside therein, Quasi moderatores, ne quid rumultuose fieret, only as Mo∣derators of the business, to see that it was fairly carried: What other ground soever he might have for his conjecture, assuredly he could collect none from the word here used. For if that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 did signifie election by holding up of hands,* 1.280 qualiter in Comitiis populi fieri solet, as in Assemblies of the people it did use to be; as he himself affirms it doth: Then certainly none but Paul and Barnabas holding up their hands, (for none but they were 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in the present business) the whole election of these Presbyters must be given to them. But indeed it was neither so, nor so. Neither the Apostle nor the People had any hand in the elections of those times, but the Spirit of God, which evidently did design and mark out those men whom God intended to imploy in his holy Ministery. The words of Paul to Timothy make this clear enough, where it is said, Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by Prophesie,* 1.281 &c. and that there went some Prophesies before concerning Timothy, the same Saint Paul hath told us in the first Chapter of that first Epistle.* 1.282 Chrysostom notes upon these words, that in those times 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Priests and Ministers of God were made by Prophesie, that is, saith he, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, by the Holy Ghost. And this he proves by the selection of Paul and Barnabas to the work of God, which was done by Prophesie and by the Spirit. And finally glossing on those words, Noli negligere gratiam, &c. he doth thus express it, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, God, saith he, did elect thee to this weighty charge, he hath committed no small part of his Church unto thee, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, no mortal man had any hand in that designation: and therefore take thou beed that thou disgrace not, nor dishonour so Divine a calling. More might be said, both from Theodoret and Oecumenius, to confirm this Truth;* 1.283 but that I think it is sufficiently confirmed already.

So then, the Presbyters of these times, being of Gods special choice, [unspec V] his own desig∣nation; and those upon the laying on of such holy hands, furnished by the Spirit with such gifts and graces as might enable them sufficiently to discharge their calling: The marvel is the less, if in those early days, at the first dawning, as it were, of Christi∣anity, we find so little speech of Bishops. In the ordaining of these Presbyters, as also of the like in other places, the Apostles might, and did no question, communicate un∣to them, such, and so much Authority as might invest them with a power of govern∣ment, during the times of their own necessary absence from those several Churches. So that however they were Presbyters in degree and order, yet they both were and might be trusted with an Episcopal jurisdiction in their several Cities; even as some Deans, although but simply Presbyters, are with us in England. And of this rank I take it were the Presbyters in the Church of Ephesus,* 1.284 whom the Apostle calleth by the

name of Bishops; that is to say, Presbyters by their Order and Degree, but Bishops in regard of their jurisdiction. Such also those ordained by Saint Paul in the Church of Philippos,* 1.285 whom the Apostle mentioneth in the very entrance of his Epistle to that people. Which as it may be some occasion, why Bishops properly so called, were not ordained by the Apostles, in the first planting of some Churches: so there are other rea∣sons alledged for it, and are briefly these. For first, although the Presbyters in those times were by the Holy Ghost endued with many excellent gifts and graces, requisite to the Preaching of the Word, yet the Apostles might not think fit to trust them with the chief government, till they had fully seen, and perfectly made tryal of their abili∣ties and parts that way.* 1.286 And this is that which Epiphanius meaneth in his dispute against Aerius, saying, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. that where there were no fit men to discharge that Office, the place remained without a Bishop; but where necessity required, and that there wanted not fit men to supply the place, there Bishops forthwith were appointed. But that which I conceive to be the prin∣cipal reason, was this, that the Apostle did reserve unto himself the chief Authority in all the Churches of his planting, so long as he continued in, or about those places: And this he exercised either by personal Visitations, mention whereof is made in the 14.21. and 15.36. of the Book of Acts; or else by his rescripts and mandates, as in his sentencing of the incestuous Corinthian, although absent thence. But when he was re∣solved to take a journey to Hierusalem,* 1.287 and from thence to Rome, not knowing when he should return to those Eastern parts, and knowing well that multitude of gover∣nours do oft breed confusions, and that equality of Ministers did oft end in factions: he then resolved to give them Bishops, to place a Chief in and above each several Pres∣bytery, over every City; committing unto them that power aswell of Ordinations, as inflicting censures, which he had formerly reserved to himself alone. This great A∣postle, as for some space of time he taught the Church, without help of Presbyters; so for another while he did rule the same without help of Bishops. A time there was wherein there were no Bishops, but the Apostles only to direct the Church; and so there was a time wherein there were no Presbyters, but they, to instruct the same.

However it must be confessed that there was a time in which some Churches had no Bishops. [unspec VI] And this,* 1.288 if any, was the time that Saint Hierom speaks of, Cum communi Presbyterorum consilio ecclesiae gubernabantur, when as the Churches were governed by the common counsel of the Presbyters. But sure it was so short a time, that had not the good Father taken a distaste against Episcopacy, by reason of some differences which he had with John the Bishop of Hierusalem; he could not easily have observed it. For whether Bishops were ordained,* 1.289 In Schismatis remedium, as he saith elsewhere, for the preventing of those Schisms and factions which were then risen in the Church; or that they were appointed by the Apostles to supply their absence, when they with∣drew themselves unto further Countreys: This government of the Church in common by the Presbyters, will prove of very short continuance. For from the first planting of the Church in Corinth,* 1.290 which was in Anno 53. unto the writing of his first Epistle to that Church and people, in which he doth complain of the Schisms amongst them, was but four whole years. And yet it doth appear by that place in Hierom, for ought can see, that the divisions of the people in Religion, some saying I am of Paul, and I of Apollo, and I of Cephas, every one cleaving unto him by whom he had received Bap∣tism, were the occasion that it was decreed throughout the world, as that Father saith, Ʋt unus de Presbyteris electus, superponeretur caeteris, that one of the Presbyters should be set over the rest, to whom the care of all the Church should appertain, that so the seeds of schism might be rooted up. And from the time when Paul ordained those Pres∣byters in Lystra and Iconium, and those other Churches, which was in Anno 48. accor∣ding as Baronius calculates it, unto Saint Paul's return unto Hierusalem, which was in Anno 58. are but ten whole years. Before which time, immediately upon his resolu∣tion to undertake that journey, and from thence to Rome, he had appointed Bishops in the Churches of his own plantation; so that the government of the Presbyters in the largest and most liberal allowance that can be given them, will be too short a time to plead prescription. Now that Saint Paul ordained Bishops in many of the Asian Cities, or in the Churches of those Cities which himself had planted, before his last going thence into Greece and Macedon; may well be gathered out of Irenaeus, who lived both neer those times, and in those parts, and possibly might have seen and known some of the Bishops of this first foundation.* 1.291 Now Irenaeus his words are these. In

Mileto enim convocatis Episcopis & Presbyteris, qui erant ab Epheso & reliquis proximis civi∣tatibus, &c.

Paul, saith he, calling together in Miletum, the Bishops and Presbyters, which were of Ephesus, and other the adjoyning Cities, told them what things were like to happen to him in Hierusalem, whither he meant to go before the Feast.

Out of which words of Irenaeus I collect thus much. First, that those Presbyters whom Paul called to Miletum, to meet him there, were not all of Ephesus, though all called from Ephesus: Ephesus being first appointed for the Randevouz, or place of meeting: and secondly, that amongst those Presbyters there were some whom Paul had digni∣fied with the stile and place of Bishops: In which regard the Assembly being of a mixt condition, they are entituled by both names; especially those Presbyters which had as yet no Bishops over them, having the charge and jurisdiction of their Churches under the Apostles, as before was said. And this perhaps may be one reason, why the Apostle in his speech to that Assembly, makes no words of Timothy; who being pre∣sent with the rest, received his charge together with them: as also why he gave the Presbyters of Ephesus no particular charge, how to behave themselves before their Bi∣shop; there being many Bishops there, which were not under the command of Timothy. However we may gather thus much out of Irenaeus, that though we find not in the Scripture the particular names of such as had Episcopal Authority committed to them, but Timothy and Titus: yet that there were some other Bishops at that time of S. Paul's Ordination, who doubtless took as great a care for Thessalonica and Philippos, for Lystra and Iconium, as for Crete and Ephesus. And that these two were by Saint Paul made Bishops of those places, will appear most fully by the concurrent testimony of ancient Writers.

And first for Timothy, that he was Bishop of the Church of Ephesus, [unspec VII] and the first Bi∣shop there, appeareth by an ancient Treatise of his death and martyrdom, bearing the name of Polycrates, who was himself not only Bishop of this Church of Ephesus, but born also within six or seven and thirty years after the writing of the Revelation by Saint John. Which treatise of Polycrates entituled, De martyrio Timothei, is extant amongst the lives of Saints, printed at Lovaine, An. 1585. and cited by the Learned Primate of Armagh in his brief Discourse touching the original of Episcopacy.* 1.292 Certain I am that Sigebertus doth report Polycrates to be the Author of a Book entituled, De passione Sancti Timothei Apostoli; but whether that it ever came unto the hands of those of Lovain, I am not able to determine. More like it is, the book is perished, and the fragments of the Treatise which remain in Photius,* 1.293 touching the death and martyr∣dom of Timothy, is all which have escaped that shipwrack. And yet in those poor frag∣ments there is proof enough that Timothy was Bishop of the Church of Ephesus, in which it is expresly said, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that Timothy was both Or∣dained and Inthroned Bishop of the Metropolis of Ephesus by the great Apostle. Se∣condly, this appeareth by the testimony of Eusebius, who reckning up Saint Pauls assistants, his 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and coadjutors, as it were, bringeth in Timothy for one; and this adds thus of him,* 1.294 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that as Histories recorded of him, he was the first Bishop of the Diocess of Ephesus. Thirdly, by Epiphanius,* 1.295 who in a glance gives him the power and stile of Bishop, where he relateth, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that the Apostle speaking unto Timothy, being then a Bishop, doth advise him thus, Rebuke not an Elder, &c. Fourthly, by Ambrose, if the work be his,* 1.296 who in the preface to his Com∣mentaries on the Epistles unto Timothy, thus resolves the point, Hunc ergo jam creatum Episcopum, instruit per Epistolam; that being now ordained a Bishop, he was instructed by Saint Pauls Epistle, how to dispose and order the Church of God. Fifthly by Hierom, who in his Tract De Eccles. Scriptoribus, doth affirm of Timothy,* 1.297 Ephesiorum Episcopum ordinatum à Beato Paulo, that he was ordained Bishop of the Ephesians by Saint Paul. Sixthly, by Chrysostom, as in many places, so most significantly and ex∣presly in his Comment on the Epistle to the Philippians, saying,* 1.298 Paul saith in his Epistle unto Timothy, Fulfil thy Ministry, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, being then a Bishop: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, for that he was a Bishop appears by Pauls writing thus unto him, Lay hands hastily on no man. Seventhly, by Leontius, Bishop of Magnesia,* 1.299 one of the Fa∣thers in the great Council of Chalcedon, affirming publickly, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that from blessed Timothy unto his times, there had been 26 Bishops of the Church of Ephesus. Eighthly, by Gregory the Great,* 1.300 where he saith that Paul admo∣nisheth his Scholar Timothy, Praelatum gregi, being now made the Prelate of a Flock, to

attend to reading.* 1.301 Ninthly, by Sedulius an ancient writer of the Scotish Nation, who lived about the middle of the first Century, affirming on the credit of old History, Ti∣motheum istum fuisse Episcopum in Epheso; that Timothy to whom Paul wrote, had been Bishop of Ephesus.* 1.302 Tenthly, by Primasius, a writer of the first 600 years, who in the Preface to his Commentaries on the first to Timothy, gives us this short note, Timotheus Episcopus fuit, & Discipulus Pauli; that Timothy was a Bishop, and Pauls Disciple: and in his Comment on the Text, saith, that he had the grace or the gift of Prophesie, cum ordinatione Episcopatus,* 1.303 with his ordination to a Bishoprick. 11. By the subscription of the second Epistle, where he is called positively, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the first that was ordained Bishop of the Ephesians.* 1.304 12. By Theophylact, who giveth this reason of Saint Pauls writing unto Timothy, because that in a Church new constitute, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. it was not easie to inform a Bishop of all things incident unto his place by word of mouth; and further in his Comment on the fourth Chapter of the first Epistle,* 1.305 doth twice or thrice give Timothy the name of Bi∣shop. 13. By Oecumonius, whom on these words of the Epistle, I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, gives this gloss or descant; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, for there, (or of that place) he ordained him Bishop. An evidence so clear and full, that Beza,* 1.306 though he would not call him Bishop, confesseth him to be President, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, of the Ephesme Presbytery, and that he had authority to receive accusations and complaints against a Presbyter, and to judge accordingly. Which what it is else than to be a Bishop, is beyond my fancy to imagine.

Now for the time in which he was appointed Bishop of the Church of Ephesus (for on the right stating of that point, [unspec VIII] * 1.307 the clearing of many difficulties doth depend) it may be best gathered from those words in the first Epistle, where Paul relates, that he besought him to abide still at Ephesus, when he himself went into Macedonia. Now S. Pauls journey into Macedonia, which is here intended, is not that mentioned, Act. 16. for then there was no Church of Ephesus to be Bishop of.* 1.308 Paul had not then seen Ephesus at all, nor planted any Church there till a good while after. Nor could it be when he left Ephesus, to go the second time into Macedonia, mention whereof is made in the 20 Chapter,* 1.309 for he had sent Timotheus, and Erastus before him thither. But it was after he had stayed three months in Greece, when hearing that the Jews laid wait for him as he went about to sail into Syria, he changed his course, and purposed to return through Macedonia. Then was it, as he went that time into Macedonia, that he brake the bu∣siness unto Timothy, requiring or besseeching him to go to Ephesus, to set up his aboad in that populous City, and undertake the government of the Church thereof. To which when Timothy had condescended,* 1.310 he was sent before with Aristarchus and the rest, tarrying at Troas in expectation of the Apostles coming. And there he was most like to be, when the Apostles first Epistle came unto his hands, being written not from Laodicea,* 1.311 as the subscription doth pretend, but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, out of Macedonia, as Athanasius doth expresly say in his Synopsis. For howsoever the Apostle hoped to come to him shortly, and to instruct him more at large for that weighty business; yet well considering how many lets and hindrances might intervene, he thought it not amiss to prevent the worst, and send that letter of instructions in the mean time to him, that he might know how to behave himself in the house of God.* 1.312 After this time, I find not that the Apostle did employ Timothy in any other general service which concerned the Church; or that he called him from Ephesus, being once got thither, save that he sent for him to make hast to Rome immediately on his first coming to that City,* 1.313 to be assistant to him there in that dangerous exigency. A thing that both the one might crave, and the other do, without detracting any thing at all from the Episcopal place and power which Timothy had taken on him: All the Epistles wherein the name of Timothy is joyned with Pauls, being written within the compass of two years, which was so short an absence from his Pastoral charge, as might be very easily dispensed withal, especially when the publique service of the Church was concerned so highly. I know that some of eminent note,* 1.314 the better to avoid some appearing difficulties that concern this business, will not have Timothy made Bishop of the Church of Ephesus, till after the Apostles coming unto Rome. But the second of the two Epistles doth very throughly refute that fancy, in which Saint Paul acquaints him how he had disposed of his retinue;* 1.315 Titus being gone into Dalmatia, Crescens to Galatia, Erastus taking up his aboad at Corinth, and Trophimus left at Miletum sick; taking great care to have the Cloak and Parchments which were left at Troas, where Timothy stayed for him, Act. 20. to be sent speedily unto him. Where by the way, Miletum, where Paul left Trophimus

sick, was not that Town of lesser Asia, unto the which the Elders were called from Ephesus, for after that we find him at Hierusalem, Act. 21.29.* 1.316 nor was it at the Island called Mileta, as Baronius thinks, on which Saint Paul was cast by Shipwrack, Act. 28. such alterations or corrections not being easily allowable in holy Scripture. For being that there is in the Isle of Crete a Town called Miletus, as Strabo testifieth; and that Saint Paul in his Voyage from Hierusalem to Rome, sailed under Crete, and hovered for a while about that coast, Act. 27.7, 8. &c. that is most like to be the place, and there I leave him.

For being thus fallen on the Coast of Crete, [unspec IX] I think it seasonable to enquire some news of Titus: whom the Apostle much about the time that Timothy undertook the charge of Ephesus, had made the Bishop of this Island. Baronius thinks,* 1.317 and not im∣probably, that at Saint Pauls last going out of Asia into Macedonia, when he had gone over those parts, and given them much exhortation, and having so done, went into Greece; that this his going into Greece was by and through the Aegean sea; that in his passage thither he put in at Crete: And finally, that he left Titus here, ad curandam Ecclesiam, whom he made Bishop for that purpose. This is most like to be the time, the circumstances of the Text and story so well agreeing thereunto; for till this time, Titus was either attendant on S. Paul in person, or sent from place to place on his oc∣casions and dispatches; as may appear by looking on the concordances of holy Scrip∣ture. Now that Titus was ordained the first Bishop of Crete, hath been affirmed by several Authors of good both credit and antiquity. For first,* 1.318 Eusebius making a Ca∣talogue of Saint Pauls assistants, or fellow-labourers, and reckoning Timothy amongst them, whom he recordeth for the first Bishop of the Church of Ephesus, adds presently, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and so was Titus also, the first Bishop of Crete.* 1.319 Saint Ambrose in the Preface to his Commentaries, on the Epistle unto Titus, doth affirm as much, Titum Apostolus consecravit Episcopum, the Apostle consecrated Titus a Bishop, and therefore doth admonish him to be solicitous for the well ordering of the Church committed to him. Saint Hierom, writing on these words in that Epistle,* 1.320 For this cause left I thee in Crete, &c. doth apply them thus, Audiant Episcopi qui habent constituendi Presbyteres per singulas urbes potestatem, Let Bishops mark this well who have authority to ordain Presbyters in every City, on what conditions, to what persons (for that I take to be his meaning) Ecclesiastical orders are to be conferred. Which is a strong insinuation, that Titus having that authority, must be needs a Bishop. More evidently in his Catalogue of Writers, or in Sophronius at the least,* 1.321 if those few names were by him added to that Catalogue. Titus Episcopus Cretae, Titus the Bishop of Crete did preach the Gospel both in that and the adjacent Islands.* 1.322 Theodoret pro∣posing first this question, why Paul should rather write to Timothy and Titus, than to Luke and Silas; returns this answer to the same, that Luke and Silas were still with him, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, but those had entrusted with the govern∣ment of Churches. But more particularly Titus, a famous Disciple of Saint Paul,* 1.323 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, was by him ordained Bishop of Crete, being a place of great extent; with a Commission also to ordain Bishops under him.* 1.324 Theophylact in his pre∣face unto this Epistle, doth affirm the same; using almost his very words. And Oecu∣menius on the Text doth declare as much, saying, that Paul gave Titus authority of ordaining Bishops, Crete being of too large a quantity to be committed unto one alone, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, having first consecrate or made him Bishop. Finally, the subscription of this Epistle calls Titus the first Bishop of the Church of the Cretians; which evidence, though questioned now of late, is of good Authority.

For some of late, who are not willing that Antiquity should afford such grounds, [unspec X] for Titus being Bishop of the Church of Crete, have amongst other arguments devised against it, found an irreparable flaw, as they conceive, in this Subscription. Beza,* 1.325 who herein led the way, disproves the whole Subscription as supposititious, because it is there said, that it was written from Nieopolis of Macedonia. A thing, saith he, which cannot be, for the Apostle doth not say, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, I will winter here, but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, illic, I will winter there; and therefore he was somewhere else when he wrote this Epistle. But Athanasius, who lived neerer the Apostles times,* 1.326 affirms it to be written from Nicopolis; and so doth Hierome in his Preface unto that Epistle. The Syriack translation dates it also thence, as is confessed by them that adhere to Beza. Theophylact and Oecumenius agree herein with Athanasius, and the ancient Copies. As for the criticism it is neither here nor there; for Saint Paul being still in motion, might appoint Titus to repair unto Nicopolis, letting him understand that howsoever he dis∣posed

of himself in the mean time, yet he intended there to Winter; and so he might well say, though he was at Nicopolis when he writ the same. That Titus is there cal∣led the first Bishop of Crete,* 1.327 or of the Church of the Cretians, is another hint, that some have taken to vilifie the credit of the said Subscription; asking if ever there were such a second Bishop? Assuredly, the Realm of England is as fair and large a circuit, as the Isle of Crete. And yet I do not find it used as argument, that Austin the Monk had neither any hand in the converting of the English, or was not the first Archbishop of the See of Canterbury;* 1.328 because it is affirmed in Beda's History, Archie∣piscopus genti Anglorum ordinatus est, that he was ordained the Archbishop of the En∣glish Nation.* 1.329 And for an answer to the question, we need but look into Eusebius, where we shall find Pinytus a right godly man, called in plain terms Bishop of Crete; Cretae Episcopus, saith the Latin, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as the Greek Original: the self-same stile, which is excepted at in Titus. Now, whereas it is said, that Titus was left no otherwise in Crete, than as Pauls Vicar General, Commissary, or Substi∣tute, to order those things in such sort as he had appointed, which he could not di∣spatch himself, when he was there present; this can by no means be admitted: the Rules prescribed unto him, and Timothy, being for the most part of that nature, as do agree with the condition of perpetual Governours, and not of temporary and remo∣vable Substitutes. As for the anticipation of the time, which I see some use, rela∣ting that Saint Paul with Titus, having passed through Syria, and Cilicia, to confirm the Churches, did from Cilicia, pass over into Crete; where the Apostle having preached the Gospel, left Titus for a while to set things in Order: although I cannot easily tell on what Authority the report is built, yet I can easily discern that it can hardly stand with Scripture. We read indeed in the 15. Chapter of the Acts, that he went thorow Syria and Cilicia confirming the Churches; ver. ult. and in the first words of the following Chapter,* 1.330 we find him at Derbe and Lystra Cities of Lycaonia, the very next Province to Cilicia Northward, from which it is divided by a branch of the Mountain Taurus. Now whether of the two it be more probable, that Paul should pass immediately from Cilicia unto Lycaonia, upon the usual common Road; or fetch a voyage into Crete,* 1.331 as these men suppose, and be transported back again into Lycao∣nia, being an in-land Countrey far from any Sea, (which could not be without some Miracle, or great hiatus in the story) I leave to any man to be imagined.

Timothy and Titus being thus setled in their Episcopal Sees, [unspec XI] we must pass on, to see if we can meet with any other of Saint Pauls Disciples, or his assistants if you will, that were entrusted with the like Authority. And first we meet with Dionysius, the Areopagite, ordained by Saint Paul, (as is most likely) the first Bishop of Athens; but howsoever, questionless ordained the first Bishop there. Another Dionysius, Bi∣shop of Corinth,* 1.332 who in all probability was born whilst Saint John was living, doth expresly say it: viz. that Dionysius the Areopagite being converted to the Faith by the Apostle Paul, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, was first ordained Bishop of the Church of Athens. The foresaid Dionysius the Corinthian doth also tell us,* 1.333 that Publius succeeded the Areopagite, after him Quadratus; both which were Disciples of the Apostles: the former of the two, being conceived to be the same,* 1.334 whose Father, Paul cured so miraculously, in the Isle of Malta. Next for the Church of Thessalonica,* 1.335 the Martyrologies inform us that Aristarchus, one of Pauls Companions, ab eodem Apostolo Thessalonicensium Episcopus ordinatus, was by him or∣dained Bishop of the Thessalonians. And after him succeeded Caius, whom Saint Paul mentioned in his Epistle to the Romans,* 1.336 by the name of Gaius, the Host, as he calls him, of the whole Church. Certain I am, that Origen reports him to be Bishop here, and that upon the known tradition of his Elders. Fertur sane ex traditione majorum, quod hic Gaius Episcopus fuerit Thessalonicensis Ecclesiae, as his own words are. So for the Church of the Philippians. Saint Paul hath told us of Epaphroditus, one whom he mentioneth oftentimes,* 1.337 in his Epistle to that people, that he was not only his Bro∣ther, and Companion in labour, and his Fellow-souldier; Vestrum autem Apostolum, but he was also their Apostle.* 1.338 Ask of Theodoret what Saint Paul there meaneth, and he will tell you that he was their Bishop. For in his Comment on the first to Timothy, he gives this note, Eos qui nunc vocantur Episcopi, nominabant Apostolos, that in those times in which Saint Paul writ that Epistle, those who are now called Bishops, were called Apostles. And this he proves out of this passage of Saint Paul, that so, in this respect, [ita Philippensium Apostolus erat Epaphroditus] Epaphroditus is called the A∣postle of the Philippians. Which clearly sheweth, that in his opinion, Epaphroditus

was Bishop of the Philippians, as Titus of the Cretans, and Timothy of the Ephesians, in whom he afterwards doth instance. Beza indeed doth render the Greek word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, by the Latin, Legatus; in which he hath been followed by the latter English, who read it Messenger. But Calvin doth not only keep himself to the old Translation,* 1.339 though he take notice of the other; but he prefers the old before it; Sed prior sensus meliùs convenit, as more agreeable unto the meaning of the place. For the Colossians next; we find the names of Epaphras, and Archippus, their two first Bishops, in the Epistle to that Church. And first for Epaphras, it is conceived that he first preached the Faith of Christ to the Colossians: And this Saint Paul doth seem to intimate in the first Chapter of the same Epistle, saying,* 1.340 As ye also learned of Epaphras our dear fel∣low servant. Certain it is, that in the Martyrologies, he is affirmed to be the Bishop of this Church, ab eodem Apostolo ordinatus,* 1.341 and that he was ordained Bishop by the hands of Paul. But being after Prisoner with Saint Paul at Rome, Archippus undertook the Episcopal charge,* 1.342 whom Paul exhorteth to take heed unto the Ministery which he had received of the Lord, and to fulfil it. Most sure I am, that Ambrose writing on those words, doth make Archippus Bishop of Colossi, by the name of their Praepositus,* 1.343 or Go∣vernour, of which see before: adding withal that after Epaphras had seasoned them in the Truth of God, hic accepit regendam eorum Ecclesiam, Archippus took the Govern∣ment of that Church upon him.

For other of Saint Pauls Disciples, we find in Dorotheus, if he may be credited, [unspec XII] that Silas, Pauls most individual Companion,* 1.344 was Bishop of the Church of Corinth. the truth whereof shall be examined more at large, in the second Century: and that Sosipater, mention of whom is made, Acts 20, was ordained Bishop of Iconium, where∣in Hippolitus concurring with him, doth make the matter the more probable. Of Sosthenes, (of whom see Acts 18. 1 Cor. 1.) the same two Authors do report, that he was Bishop of Colophon, one of the Cities of the lesser Asia. But leaving these more Eastern Countreys, let us look homeward towards the West. And there we find that Crescens, whom Saint Paul, at his first coming unto Rome,* 1.345 had sent into Galatia to con∣firm the Churches; was after by him sent on the like occasion into Gaule, or Gallia, there to preach the Gospel: for so I rather chuse to atone the business, than correct the Text, and read it Crescens in Galliam with Epiphanius.* 1.346 For having with so good success been employed formerly in Galatia; he might with better comfort undertake the service of Preaching Christ unto the Gaules, whereof the Galatians were a branch or Colony. Now that he did indeed Preach Christs Gospel there, is affirmed posi∣tively both by Epiphanius and Theodoret, two very eminent and ancient Writers:* 1.347 and Ado Viennensis, a Writer though of lesser standing, yet of good repute, affirmeth that he was put upon this employment, quo tempore Paulus in Hispànias pervenisse creditur, at such time as it is conceived that the Apostle Paul went into Spain, which was in Anno 61. as Baronius thinketh, there being left, and having planted a Church of Christ, in the City of Vienna, (now in that Province which is called Daulphine) he became the first Bishop of the same; Primus ejusdem Civitatis Episcopus, saith the Martyrologie.* 1.348 And to this, Ado, one of his successors, also doth agree; adding withal, that after he had sat there some few years, he returned back again into Galatia, leaving one Zacharias to succeed him. Finally, not to leave out Britain, it is recorded in the Greek Menolo∣gies, that Aristobulus (whom Saint Paul speaks of Rom. 16.) being one of the Seven∣ty, and afterwards a follower of Saint Paul,* 1.349 was by him ordained Bishop of Britain (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as the words there are) a region full of fierce and savage people; and that having there setled the Church, and ordained Presbyters and Deacons in the same, he did there also end his life. The Reverend Pri∣mate of Armagh, out of a fragment attributed to Heleca,* 1.350 sometimes Bishop of Sara∣gossa in Spain, doth recite a passage, wherein it is affirmed of this Aristobulus, missum in Angliam Episcopum, that he was sent Bishop into England, for so the Author calleth this Countrey according to the name it had when he writ the same. But these things which relate to the British Churches, I rather shall refer to our learned Antiquaries, to be considered of more fully; than affirm any thing my self.

But to look back on Timothy and Titus, [unspec XIII] whom we left lately in their several Churches, I hear it said, that notwithstanding all those proofs before produced from the ancient, yet being Evangelists, as they were, they could be no Bishops:* 1.351 Bishops being tied to the particular care of that flock or Church, over which God had made them Overseers; but the Evangelists being Planetary, sent up and down from place to place, by the Apostles, as the necessities of the Church required. Besides that moving

in an higher sphere than that of Bishops, and being Co-partners with Saint Paul in his Apostleship or Apostolical function,* 1.352 it had been a devesting of themselves of their A∣postolical jurisdiction, and preheminence, to become Bishops at the last, and so descend from a superiour to an inferiour Office. For answer whereunto we need say but this, that the gift of being an Evangelist, might, and did fall on any rank of ordinary Mi∣nisters, as might that also of the Prophet. Philip one of the seven, a Deacon, as it is generally conceived, but howsoever Ministring unto the Church, in an inferiour place or Office, was notwithstanding an Evangelist: and Agabus, though perhaps but a simple Presbyter, one of the Seventy past all question, was a Prophet too. Philip, as he was one of the Seven, was tied to a particular employment, and of necessity, sometimes,* 1.353 must leave the Word of God to serve Tables. Yet the same Philip, as he was fur∣nished by the Lord with gifts and graces for gaining Souls to God Almighty, and doing the work of an Evangelist, must leave the serving of those Tables to preach the Word. And Agabus,* 1.354 if he were a Presbyter, whether of Hierusalem, from whence he is twice said to come, or of some other Church, that I will not say, might notwithstanding his employment in a particular Church, repair to Antioch, or Caesarea, as the Spirit willed him, there to discharge the Office of a Prophet. So then both Timothy and Titus might be Bishops, as to their ordinary place and calling; though in relation un∣to their extraordinary gifts, they were both Evangelists. As for their falling from a higher, to a lower function, from an Evangelist unto a Bishop; I cannot possibly per∣ceive where the fall should be. They that object this, will not say, but Timothy, at the least, was made a Presbyter, for wherefore else did the Presbytery (which they so much stand on) lay hands upon him. And certainly, if it were no diminution from an Evangelist to become a I resbyter; it was a preferment unto the Evangelist, from being but a Presbyter to become a Bishop. But for the Bishopping of Timothy and Titus, as to the quod sit of it, that so they were, in the opinion of all ancient Wri∣ters, we have said enough. We will next look on the authority committed to them, to see what further proof hereof may be brought for that.

CHAP. V. Of the Authority and Jurisdiction given by the Word of God, to Ti∣mothy and Titus, and in them, to all other Bishops.

• 1. The Authority committed to Timothy and Titus, was to be perpetual, and not per∣sonal only.
• 2. The power of Ordination intrusted only unto Bishops by the Word of God, accord∣ing to the judgments of the Fathers.
• 3. Bishops alone both might, and did Ordain, without their Presbyters.
• 4. That Presbyters might not Ordain with∣out a Bishop, proved by the memorable case of Coluthus and Ischyras.
• 5. As by those also of Maximus, and a Spa∣nish Bishop.
• 6. In what respects, the joint assistance of the Presbyters was required herein.
• 7. The case of the Reformed Churches be∣yond the Seas, declared, and qualified.
• 8. The care of ordering Gods Divine Service, a work peouliar to the Bishop.
• 9. To whom the Ministration also of the Sa∣oraments doth in chief belong.
• 10. Bishops to have a care that Gods Word be preached: and to encourage those that take pains that way.
• 11. Bishops to silence, and correct such Pres∣byters, as preach other doctrines.
• 12. As also to reprove and reject the He∣retick.
• 13. The censure and correction of inferiour Presbyters, doth belong to Bishops.
• 14. And of Lay-people also, if they walk un∣worthy of their Christian calling.
• 15. Conjectural proofs that the description of a Bishop, in the first to Timothy, is of a Bishop truly and properly so called.

THEY who object that Timothy and Titus were Evangelists; [unspec I] and so by conse∣quence no Bishops,* 1.355 have also said, and left in writing, that the authority com∣mitted to them by Saint Paul, did not belong to them at all, as Bishops, but Evange∣lists

only. But this, if pondered as it ought, hath no ground to stand on. The cal∣ling of Evangelists, as it was Extraordinary, so it was but temporary, to last no lon∣ger, than the first planting of the Church, for which so many signal gifts and graces of the Holy Spirit, were at first poured on the Disciples. I know not any Orthodox Writer, who doth not in this point agree with Calvin:* 1.356 who in his Comment on the Epistle to the Ephesians, gives us this instruction, Deum Apostolis, Evangelistis & Prophetis, Ecclesiam suam non nisi ad tempus ornasse, that God adorned his Church with Prophets, Evangelists and Apostles, for a season only: having before observed, that of all those holy ministrations there recited, Postrema tantum duo perpetua esse, the two last, (viz. Pastors and Teachers, which he takes for two) were to be perpetual. But on the other side, power to ordain fit Ministers, of what sort soever, as also to reprove and censure those that behaved themselves unworthily; authority to con∣vent and reject an Heretick, to punish by the censures of the Church, all such as give offence and scandal to the Congregation by their exhorbitant and unruly living: this ought to be perpetual in the Church of Christ. This the Apostle seems to inti∣mate, when he said to Timothy, I charge thee in the sight of God,* 1.357 and before Jesus Christ, that thou keep this Commandment without spot, and unreprovable, until the appear∣ing of our Lord Jesus Christ. Now Timothy was not like to live till Christs second coming; the Apostle, past all question, never meant it so: therefore the power, and charge here given to exercise the same, according to the Apostles Rules and Precepts was not personal only: but such as was to appertain to him, and to his successours for ever, even till the appearing of our Lord and Saviour. The like expression do we find in Saint Matthew, when our Redeemer said unto his Apostles,* 1.358 Behold I am with you always even unto the end of the world, Not always certainly with his Apostles, not to the end of the World with those very men, to whom he did address himself when he spake these words; for they being mortal men have been dead long since. Non solis hoc Apostolis dictum esse, this was no personal promise then, saith Calvin truly.* 1.359 With them and their successours he might always be, and to the end of the world give them his assistance. Cum vobis & successorlbus vestris, as Denis the Carthusian very well observeth. Saint Paul then gives this charge to Timothy, and in him unto all his successors in the Episcopal function; which should continue in the Church till Christs second coming. And therefore I conceive the annotation of the ordinary gloss to be sound and good, in Timotheo omnibus successoribus loquitur Apostolus,* 1.360 that this was spoke in Timothy unto all his successors. And so the Commentaries under the name of Ambrose do inform us also, saying, that Paul was not so solicitous for Timothy, as for his successors, ut exemplo Timothei Ecclesiae ordinationem custodirent:* 1.361 that they might learn by his Example (i.e. by practising those directions which were given to him) to look unto the ordering of the Church.

This ground thus laid, [unspec II] we must next look on the authority which the Apostle gave to Timothy and Titus, and in them to all other Bishops. And the best way to look upon it is, to divide the same as the School-men do, into potestas ordinis, and po∣testas jurisdictionis; the power of Order, and the power of jurisdiction: in each of which there occur divers things to be considered. First, for the power of Order, besides what every Bishop doth, and may lawfully perform, by vertue of the Orders he received as Presbyter; there is a power of Order conferred upon him as a Bishop: and that's indeed the power of Ordination, or giving Orders, which seems so proper and peculiar to the Bishops Office, as not to be communicable to any else. Paul gives it as a special charge to Timothy, to lay hands hastily on no man:* 1.362 which caution doubt∣less had been given in vain, in case the Presbyters of Ephesus might have done it, as well as he. And Titus seems to have been left in Crete for this purpose chiefly,* 1.363 that he might ordain Presbyters in every City: which questionless had been unnecessary, in case an ordinary Presbyter might have done the same. The Fathers have observed from these Texts of Scripture, that none but Bishops strictly and properly so called (ac∣cording as the word was used when they lived that said it) have any power of Or∣dination. Epiphanius in his dispute against Aerius,* 1.364 observes this difference betwixt Bishops and Presbyters, (whom the Heretick would fain have had to be the same) that the Presbyter by administring the Sacrament of Baptism, did beget children to the Church: but that the Bishop by the power of Ordination, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, did beget Fathers to the same. A power from which he utterly excludes the Presbyter; and gives good reason for it too: for how, saith he, can he ordain, or constitute a Presbyter, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which in his Ordination

did receive no power to impose hands upon another:* 1.365 Chrysostom speaking of the dif∣ference between a Bishop, and a Presbyter, makes it consist in nothing else, but in this power of Ordination. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. only in laying on of hands, saith he, or in Ordination, a Bishop is before, or above a Presbyter; and have that power only inherent in them,* 1.366 which the others have not. Hierom although a great advancer of the place and Office of the Presbyter, excludes him from the power of Ordination, or any interest therein. Quid enim facit excepta ordinatione Episcopus, quod Presbyter non faciat? What, saith he, doth a Bishop, saving Ordination, more than a Presbyter may do? Neither doth Hierom speak de facto, and not de jure, quid facit, not quid debet facere:* 1.367 as I observe the place to be both cited and applyed in some late Dis∣courses. Hierom's non faciat, is as good as non debet facere: and they that look upon him well, will find he pleads not of the possession only, but the right and Title. And we may see his meaning by the passage formerly alledged upon the words of Paul to Titus, cap. 1. v. 5. Audiant Episcopi qui habent constituendi Presbyteros per singulas urbes potestatem. By which it seems that Bishops only had the power of ordaining Presby∣ters; and that they did both claim, and enjoy the same from this grant to Titus.

For further clearing of this point, [unspec III] there are two things to be declared and made evident, first, that the power of Ordination was so inherent in the person of a Bishop, that he alone both might and did sometimes ordain, without help of Presbyters: and secondly, that the Presbyters might not do the same without the Bishop. And first, that anciently the Bishops of the Church both might, and did ordain, without the help or co-assistance of the Presbyters,* 1.368 appeareth by the ordination of Origen un∣to the Office of a Presbyter by Theoctistus Bishop of Caesarea, and Alexander Bishop of Hierusalem, who laid hands upon him; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as my Author hath it. Which act of theirs when it was quarrelled by Demetrius, he did not plead in bar, that there were no Presbyters assistant in it; but that the party had done somewhat (and we know what 'twas) by which he was conceived to be uncapable of holy Orders.* 1.369 So when the Bishop, whosoever he was, out of an affe∣ctation which he bare unto Novatus (not being yet a Separatist from the Church of God) desired, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Clergy being all against it, to ordain him Presbyter: the matter stood upon, as the story testifieth, was not the Bishops being the sole agent in it, but because it was forbidden by the ancient Canons, that any one who had been formerly baptized being sick in bed, (and that had been Novatus case) should be assumed into the Clergy. But not to make a fur∣ther search into particulars, which are vast and infinite: we have two notable cases that reflect this way, and in them two such general Maxims as will make all sure. In the third Council of Carthage holden in or about the year 390. it was proposed by Aurelius then Metropolitan of Carthage,* 1.370 that it might be lawful for him to chuse or take Presbyters out of the Churches of his Suffragans, and to ordain them Bishops of such Cities as were unprovided: and that the Bishops of those Churches, whose Clerks, or Presbyters they were, might not be suffered to oppose. To which when all the Fathers had agreed. Posthumianus one of the Prelates there assembled, puts this case, that if a Bishop had but one Presbyter only, Numquid debet illi ipse unus Presbyter auferri, whether that one Presbyter should be taken from him. Aurelius thereunto replyeth, Episcopum unum esse posse, per quem dignatione divina Presbyteri mul∣ti constitui possunt, that a Bishop by Gods grace might make many Presbyters, and therefore that on such occasions, his one and only Presbyter must be yielded up upon demand. By which it is most clear and evident, that a Bishop may alone perform the Act or Ceremony of Ordination, not having any Presbyter at all to join with him in it. The like occurreth in the second Council of Sevil (held in the year 617, or thereabouts) con∣cerning Erangitanus a Presbyter of the Church of Corduba, who by the Bishop of that See,* 1.371 (a ruffling Prelate, as appeareth by the following Chapter) had been deposed from his Ministry: the cause being brought before the Council, and the whole process openly declared unto them, the man was presently restored to his Orders, and the sentence pas∣sed against him declared to be irrregular, and contrary to the ancient Canons, where∣by it was enacted that no Clergy-man should be deposed without the judgment of a Synod. And then it followeth, Episcopus sacerdotibus & ministris solus dare honorem po∣test, auferre solus non potest; that Bishops solely of themselves may confer holy Orders on Priests and Deacons, but solely of their own authority, they could not depose them.

So then it is most clear and evident, [unspec IV] that Bishops might and did ordain, without their Presbyters, might not the Presbyters do the like sometimes, without their Bi∣shop?

Certainly nothing less than so: or if they did attempt it at any time, the whole act was not only censured and condemned as uncanonical, but adjudged void and null, from the first beginning. For besides that which hath been said before, from Hierom, Chrysostom, and Epiphanius, touching the limitation of this power to the Bishops only; there are three Book-cases in the point, which put the matter out of question: Coluthus, once a Presbyter of Alexandria,* 1.372 falling at difference with his Bishop, usurps upon the Bishops Office, and ordains certain Presbyters, himself be∣ing one. This business being canvassed in the Council of Alexandria, before that famous Confessor Hosius, and other Bishops there assembled: Coluthus was command∣ed to carry himself for a Presbyter only, as indeed he was: and all the Presbyters of his ordaining reduced to the same condition, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in which they were before the said Ordination. Where by the way instead of Coluthus the last edition of this Author in Greek and Latin, doth read Catholicus:* 1.373 which must be mended as before, in the relation of this story;* 1.374 where we have Co∣luthus, and not Catholicus. But to proceed. It hapned afterwards that Ischyras one of the Pseudo-Presbyters ordained by Coluthus,* 1.375 accused Macarius (one of the Pres∣byters of Athanasius) for a pretended violence to be offered to him,* 1.376 then ministring at the holy Table. So that the business being brought at last unto the judgment of a Council; and the point in issue being this, whether this Ischyras were a Presbyter, or not; and so by consequence a dispenser of those sacred Mysteries: he was return∣ed no Presbyter, by the full consent of all the Prelates then assembled. The reason was, because he was ordained by Coluthus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, who died a Presbyter; and that his Ordinations had been all made void, and those that had received them at his hands, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, became lay again, and in that state received the blessed Sacrament as the Lay-men did. And this saith Athanasius was a thing so publique, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that no man ever doubted of the truth thereof.

The second case was that of Maximus, [unspec V] once a familiar friend of Gregory Nazian∣zens, at such time as he was Bishop of Constantinople; and by him,* 1.377 having taken a good liking to him, admitted into the Clergy of that Church. But Maximus being an ungrateful wretch, complots with others like himself, to be made Bishop of that City: and thereupon negotiates with Peter, then Patriarch of Alexandria, to ordain him Bishop of the same; which being done accordingly, (for Maximus was by birth of Egypt, and possibly might have good friends there, besides his money) and the whole City in a great distemper about the business: the whole cause came at last to be debated in the first general Council of Constantinople,* 1.378 where on full hearing of the matter it was thus Decreed, viz. that Maximus neither was to be taken for a Bishop, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, nor any of those he had ordained to be accounted of the Clergy, or remain in any order or degree thereof. Where note, that howsoever Maximus came unlawfully unto the bishoprick of Constantinople, by means whereof all the Acts done by him as a Bishop, were made void and frustrate: yet if as Presby∣ter, to which degree he had been lawfully ordained by Nazianzen, he might have given the imposition of hands, the Presbyters by him ordained, would have held good still. But the third case comes nearest to the business, yet as it is thus reported in the Council of Sevil before remembred. A Bishop of the Church of Spain,* 1.379 being troubled with sore eyes, and having some presented to him to be ordained Presby∣ters and Deacons, did only lay his hands upon them, suffering a Presbyter that stood by, to read the words of Ordination. This coming to be scanned in the afore∣said Council, upon mature deliberation it is thus determined. First, for the Presby∣ter, which assisted, that for his boldness and presumption, he had been subject to the Councils censure, but that he was before deceased: next for the Presbyter and Deacons, who were so ordained, that they should actually be deposed from all sacred Orders, Concluding thus, Tales enim merito judicati sunt removendi, quia prave inventi sunt constituti; that they were worthily adjudged to lose those Orders, which they had wrongfully received. So little influence had the Presbyters in the essential parts of Ordination, as that their bare reading of the words (though required to it by the Bishop) was adjudged enough, not only to make them liable to the Churches Cen∣sure, but also for their sakes to make void the Action. Nay so severe and punctual was the Church herein, that whereas certain Bishops of those times, whether consult∣ing their own case, or willing to decline so great a burthen, had suffered their Cho∣repiscopi, aswell those which were simply Presbyters, as such as had Episcopal Ordina∣tion

(for two there were) to perform this Office:* 1.380 it was forbidden absolutely in the one, limited and restrained in the other sort, as by the Canons of the two ancient Synods of Gangra, and Antioch, doth at full appear.

It is true indeed, that anciently, as long, for ought I know, as there is any Monu∣ment, or Record of true Antiquity, [unspec VI] the Presbyters have joyned their hands to, and with the Bishops, in the performance, and discharge of this great Solemnity. And hereof there are many evidences that affirm the same, as well in matter of fact, as in point of Law. Saint Cyprian, one of the ancientest of the Fathers, which now are extant,* 1.381 affirms, that in the ordination of Aurelius unto the Office of a Reader in the Church of Carthage, he used the hands of his Colleagues. Hunc igitur à me, & à Col∣legis, qui praesentes aderant, ordinatum sciatis, as he reports the matter in a Letter to his charge at Carthage. Where by Colleagues it is most likely that he means his Pres∣byters; first, because that Epistle was written during the time of his retreat, and pri∣vacy; what time it is not probable, that any of his Suffragan Bishops did resort unto him: and secondly, because those words, qui praesentes aderant, are so conform unto the practice of that Church in the times succeeding. For in the fourth Council of Carthage held in the year 401.* 1.382 it was Decreed, that when a Presbyter was ordained, the Bishop blessing him, and holding his hand upon his head, etiam omnes Presbyteri qui praesentes sunt manus suas juxta manum Episcopi super caput illius teneant; all the Pres∣byters which are present shall likewise lay their hands upon his head, near the hands of the Bishop.* 1.383 And in the same Council it was further ordered, that the Bishop should not ordain a Clergy-man, sine consilio clericorum suorum, without the counsel of his Clergy: which also doth appear to be Cyprians practice, in the first words of the Epistle before remembred. But then it is as true withal, that this conjunction of the Presbyters in the solemnities of this Act, was rather ad honorem Sacerdotii, quam essentiam operis, more for the honour of the Priesthood, than for the essence of the work. Nor did the laying on of the Presbyters hands confer upon the party that was ordained any power or order: but only testified their consent unto the business, and approbation of the man, according to the purpose and intent of the last of the two Canons before alledged. And for the first Canon, if you mark it well, it doth not say, that if there be no Presbyters in place, the Bishop should defer the Ordination till they came: but Presbyteri qui praesentes sunt, if any Presbyters were present at the doing of it, they should lay their hands upon his head, near the Bishops hands. So that however anciently, in the purest times, the Presbyters which were then present, both might and did impose hands with the Bishop, upon the man to be ordained; and so concurred in the performance of the outward Ceremony: yet the whole power of Ordination was vested in the person of the Bishop only, as to the essence of the work. And this appears yet further, by some passages in the Civil Laws, prescribed for the ordering of Ecclesiastical Ministers; by which, upon neglect or contempt thereof, the Presbyters were not obnoxious unto punishment that joyned with the Bishop, because they had no power to hinder what he meant to do. But the Bishop only, qui ordinat, or, qui ordinationem imponit, he in whom rested the authority, by laying on, or by withholding of his hands, either to frustrate or make good the action: he was accomptable unto the Laws, if he should transgress them: for which consult Novell. Constitut. 123.* 1.384 Ca. 16. and Novell. Constitut. 6. And so it also stood in the Churches practice; as appeareth plainly by the degradations of Basilius, Eleu∣sius, and Elpidius, three ancient Bishops, because that (amongst other things) they had advanced some men unto holy Orders, contrary to the Laws, and Ordinances of the Church: of which Elpidius was deposed on no other reason, but on that alone. Now had the Presbyters been agents in ordaining as well as the Bishop, and the im∣posing of their hands so necessary, that the business could not be performed without them: there had been neither equity, nor reason in it, to let them scape Scot-free, and punish the poor Bishops only, for that in which the Presbyters were as much in fault.

Against all this, [unspec VII] I meet with no Objection in Antiquity, but what hath casual∣ly been encountred in the former passages. This present age doth yield one, and a great one too, which is the case of the Reformed Churches beyond the Seas: who finding an aversness of the Bishops at the first, to give them Orders, unless they would desert the work of Reformation, which they had in hand, were fain to have recourse to Presbyters, for their Ordinations, in which estate they still continue. That thus it was,* 1.385 appeareth by the Augustan Confession, the Authors and Abettors of the which

complain, that the Bishop would admit none unto sacred Orders, Nisi jurent se pu∣ram Evangelii Doctrinam nolle docere, except they would be sworn not to Preach the Gospel according to the grounds and Principles of their Reformation. For their parts they profes∣sed, Non id agi ut dominatio excipiatur Episcopis, that they had no intention to deprive the Bishops of their Authority in the Church; but only that they might have liberty to Preach the Gospel, and be eased of some few Rites and Ceremonies, which could not be ob∣served without grievous sin. This if it could not be obtained, and that a Schism did fol∣low thereupon, it did concern the Bishops to look unto it, how they would make up their ac∣count to Almighty God. So that the Bishops thus refusing to admit them into holy Orders, which was the publique ordinary Door of entrance into the Ministery of the Church; necessity compelled them at the last, to enter in by private ways, and im∣pose hands on one another. In which particular the case of the Reformed Churches may not unfitly be resembled unto that of Scipio, as it is thus related in the story.* 1.386 Upon some want of money for the furtherance of the necessary affairs of State, he demanded a supply from the common Treasury. But when the Quaestor, pretending that it was against the Laws, refused to open it; himself a private person, seised upon the Keys: Et patefacto aerario, legem necessitati cedere coegit, and made the Law give way to the necessities of the Commonwealth. So in like manner, the better to re∣form Religion, many good men made suit to be supplyed out of the common Trea∣suries of the Church; to be admitted to the Ministery, according to the common course of Ordination. Which when it was denyed them by the Bishops, the Churches Quaestors in this case, they rather chose to seise upon the Keys; and receive Ordination from the hands of private persons, than that the Church should be un∣furnished. This I conceive to be the Case, at the first beginning. But whether with the change of their condition, the case be altered, or whether they continue in the state they were; I am not able to say any thing. It is a good old saying, and to that I keep me; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that where I am a stranger, I must be no medler.

Hitherto of the power of Ordination committed by Saint Paul to his two Bishops of Ephesus and Crete, and in them to all other Bishops whatsoever. [unspec VIII] We must next look upon the power of Jurisdiction, and that consists in these particulars: First, in the ordering of Gods Service, and the Administration of his Sacraments. Second∣ly, in the preaching of his Word, censuring those that broach strange Doctrines; and on the other side encouraging and rewarding such as are laborious in their Calling: and lastly, in correction of the manners of such as walk unworthy of the Gospel of Christ, whether of the Clergy, or the Laity. To these three Heads, we may reduce the several points and branches of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction; so far forth as the same hath been committed by the Word of God, and by the practice of the Church, unto the managing and care of Bishops. First for the ordering of Gods Service, and all things thereunto pertaining, Saint Paul gave Timothy this Direction, that first of all,* 1.387 Supplications, Prayers, Intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men: for Kings, and all that be in authority, that men may lead a quiet and a peaceable life, in all godli∣ness and honesty. This, as it was a common Duty, and appertaining unto every man in his several place: so the Apostle leaves it unto Timothy, to see that men performed this Duty, and were not suffered to neglect it. For that the Prayers here intended, were not the private Prayers of particular persons, but the publique of the Congre∣gation, is agreed on all sides. Calvin conceives it so for the Protestant Writers, Paulus simpliciter jubet quoties orationes publicae habentur,* 1.388 that Paul doth here appoint what he would have to be comprized in our publique Prayers. Estius, for the Ponti∣ficians, doth resolve so also,* 1.389 that the place must be understood de publicis Ecclesiae pre∣cibus, of the publique Prayers, of and in the Congregation. And that the Western Churches may not stand alone, Theophylact, and Oecumenius do expound the words,* 1.390 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, of the daily Service used in the Church of God, who also call it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the first Christian Duty. Now ask of Chrysostom,* 1.391 to whom it doth belong to see this Duty carefully discharged as it ought to be; and he will tell you 'tis the Priest, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as he which is the common Father of the Universe, and therefore to take care of all, as doth the Lord, whose Priest, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 he is. And ask of Oecumenius;* 1.392 than whom none better un∣derstood that Fathers Writings, whom he doth there mean by the Priest, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and he will tell you that it is the Bishop. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. It doth, saith he, belong unto the Bishop, as the common Father, to make Prayers for all men,

faithful and infidels, friends and enemies, persecuters and slanderers. Lyra speaks home and fully to this purpose also. For this he makes to be secundus actus ad Episcopum per∣tinens, the second Act belonging to the Bishops Office, that Prayers be offered unto God.

The Ministration of the Sacraments, [unspec IX] being a principal part of Gods publique service, and comprehending Prayers and Supplications, and giving of thanks, must be looked on next. And this we find to be committed principally to the Bishops care, and by their hands to such inferiour Ministers in the Church of God, as they thought fit to trust with so great a charge.* 1.393 To teach and to Baptize, was given in the charge to the Apostles; and unto none but they did Christ say, hoc facite, that they should take the bread and break, and bless it, and so deliver it to the Communicants. So also in the blessing and distributing of the other element. This power they left in general to their Successors, to the Bishops chiefly, and such as were found worthy of so high a trust,* 1.394 by their permission. Ignatius, who lived nearest to our Saviours time, and had been conversant with the Apostles, doth expresly say it. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. It is not lawful without the Bishop, ei∣ther to Baptize, or make Oblations, or celebrate the Eucharist, or finally to keep the Love-feasts, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which were then in use (for those I take it were the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which the Father speaks of.* 1.395) Tertullian for the second Century doth affirm as much. The right, saith he, of giving Baptism, belongs to the chief Priest, that is, the Bishop; next to the Presbyters or Deacons, non tamen sine authoritate Episcopi, yet not without the Bishops Licence or Authority.* 1.396 In the third Century, the Councel held in Laodicea is as plain and full, save that indeed it is more general, in which the Presbyter is tyed from doing any thing (i. e. such things as appertain to his ministration) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. without the knowledge of his Bishop.* 1.397 Saint Hierom finally, no great advancer of the Episcopal authority and jurisdiction, having considered of it better, doth conclude at last, that if the Bishop had not a preheminence in the Church of God, there would be presently almost as many Schisms as Priests. And hence it is, saith he, Ʋt sine Episcopi missione neque Presbyter, neque Diaconus jus habeat baptizandi, that without lawful mission from the Bishop, neither the Presbyter nor Deacons might Baptize. Not that I think there was required in Hieroms time, a special Licence from the Bishop, for every ministerial act that men in either of those Orders were to exe∣cute, but that they had no more interest therein, than what was specially given them by, and from the Bishop, in their Ordination.

As for the Act of Preaching, [unspec X] which was at first discharged by the Apostles, Prophets, and Evangelists, according to the gifts that God had given them for the performance of the same; when as the Church began to settle, it was conferred by the Apostles on the several Presbyters by themselves ordained, as doth appear by Saint Pauls exhorta∣tion to the Presbyters,* 1.398 which he called from Ephesus unto Miletum. To this as Timothy had been used before, doing the work of an Evangelist; so he was still required to ply it, being called unto the Office of a Bishop. Saint Paul conjuring him before God and Christ, that notwithstanding the diversions which might happen to him by reason of his Episcopal place and jurisdiction,* 1.399 he should Preach the Word, and not to Preach it only in his own particular,* 1.400 shewing himself a Workman that needed not to be ashamed, di∣viding the word of truth aright: But seeing that others also did the like, according to the trust reposed in them; whether they had been formerly ordained by the Apostles, or might be by himself ordained in times succeeding. Those that discharge this duty both with care and conscience,* 1.401 guiding and governing that portion of the Church a∣right, wherewith they are intrusted, and diligently labouring in the word and doctrine, by the Apostle are accounted worthy of double honour. Which questionless S. Paul had never represented unto Timothy, but that it did belong unto him, as a part of his Episcopal power and Office to see that men so painful in their calling, and so discreet in point of government, should be rewarded and encouraged accordingly. By honour in this place, the Apostle doth not only mean respect and reverence, but support and maintenance, as appears plainly by that which is alledged from holy Scripture, viz. Thou shalt not muzzle the Oxe that treadeth out the Corn: And, the Labourer is worthy of his hi••e.* 1.402 Chrysostom so expounds the word, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, By honour here is meant both reverence and a supply of all things necessary; with whom agree the Commentaries which pass under the name of Ambrose. Calvin affirms the like for our modern Writers. Victum praecipue suppeditari jubet Pastoribus qui docendo sunt occupati; Paul here commandeth that necessary main∣tenance

be allowed the Pastor, who laboureth in the Word and Doctrin: And hereto Beza agreeth also in his Annotations on the place. Now we know well that in those times wherein Paul wrote to Timothy, and a long time after, the dispensation of the Churches Treasury was for the most part in the Bishop, and at his appointment. For, as in the beginnings of the Gospel, the Faithful sold their Lands and Goods,* 1.403 and laid the money at the Apostles feet, by them to be distributed as the necessities of the Church required: So in succeeding times, all the Oblations of the faithful were returned in un∣to the Bishop of the place, and by him disposed of. We need not stand on many Au∣thors in so clear a business. Zonaras telling plainly, that at the first, the Bishop had the absolute and sole disposing of the revenues of the Church; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,* 1.404 no man whoever, being privy to their doings in it. And that they did accordingly dis∣pose thereof, to every man according to his parts and industry, doth appear by Cy∣prian, where he informeth us, that he having advanced Celerinus, a Confessor of great renoun amongst that people, and no less eminent indeed for his parts and piety, unto the office of a Reader, he had allotted unto him,* 1.405 and to Aurelius (one of equal vertue) then a Reader also, Ʋt sportulis iisdem cum Presbyteris honorentur, that they should have an equal share in the distribution with the Priests or Presbyters.

But many times so fell out, that those to whom the Ministry of the word was trusted, [unspec XI] Preached other doctrin to the People than that which had been taught by the Apostles,* 1.406 Vain talkers and deceivers, which subverted whole houses, teaching things they should not, and that for filthy lucres sake. What must the Bishop do to them? He must first charge them not to Preach such doctrins, which rather minister questions than godly edifying:* 1.407 And if they will not hearken to, nor obey this charge, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,* 1.408 he must stop their mouths, let them be silenced in plain English. The silencing of such Ministers as de∣ceive the People, and Preach such things they should not, even for lucres sake, to the subverting of whole Families, is no new matter, as we see in the Church of God. Saint Paul here gives it as in charge to Titus, and to all Bishops in his person. Certain I am that Chrysostom doth so expound it. If thou prevailest not, saith he, by admoni∣tions,* 1.409 be not afraid, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, silentium iis impone, the Translator reads it, but silence them that others may the better be preserved by it. Hierom doth so translate it also, quibus oportet silentium indici, such men must be commanded silence.* 1.410 And for the charge of Paul to Timothy, that he should charge those false Apostles which he speaks of not to Preach strange doctrines; it carries with it an Authority that must be exercised. For this cause I required thee to abide at Ephesus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, not that thou shouldst intreat, but command such men to Preach no other doctrines than they had from me. Theophylact on those words,* 1.411 puts the question thus, in the words of Chrysostom, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 it may be asked, saith he, whether that Timothy were then Bishop when Paul wrote this to him. To which he answereth of himself, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that it is most probable; giving this reason of the same, because he is to charge those men not to teach other doctrines.* 1.412 Oecumenius is more positive in the point, and affirms expresly on these words, that Paul had made him Bishop there, before that time. And Lyra, if he may be heard,* 1.413 make this ge∣neral use of the Apostles exhortation, that the first Act here recommended to a Bishop, is falsae doctrinae extirpatio, the extirpation of false doctrine.

This part of jurisdiction, with those that follow, I shall declare only, [unspec XII] but not ex∣emplifie. For being matters meerly practical, and the proceedings on Record, they will occur hereafter, as occasion is, in this following History. And that which fol∣loweth first, is very near of kin indeed unto that before. For many times it happen∣eth so, that howsoever men be charged not to teach strange doctrins, and that their mouths be stopped, and they put to silence; yet they will persevere however in their wicked courses, and obstinately continue in the same, until at last their obstinacy ends in heresie. What course is to be taken upon such occasions? The Apostle hath re∣solved that also. A man that is an Heretick, saith he, after the first and second admoni∣tion,* 1.414 is to be rejected. Rejected? but by whom? why by Titus surely. The words are spoken unto him in the second person, and such as did possess the same place and office. Hanc sive admonitionem, sive correptionem, intellige ab Episcopo faciendam,* 1.415 &c.

This 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which Saint Paul here speaks of, whether that it be meant of gentle admonition, or severe reproof, must be done only by the Bishop, and that not as a private person, but as the governour of the Church, and that both with authority and power, by which he also may denounce him excommunicate, if he amend not on the same.

So Estius, in his Comment on the place; and herewith Calvin doth accord,

Tito scribens Paulus,* 1.416 non disserit de Officio magistratus, sed quid Episcopo conveniat. Paul, saith he, writing unto Titus, disputes not of the Office of the civil Magistrate, but of the duty of a Bishop. And this in answer unto some, who had collected from these words of the Apostle, that Hereticks were to be encountred with no sharper weapon than that of Excommunication, nec esse ultra in eos saeviendum, and that there was no other course to be taken with them. In which these Moderns say no more, as to the exer∣cise and discharge of the Episcopal function in this case,* 1.417 than what the Ancients said before. I marvail, saith Saint Hierom, speaking of Vigilantius, a broacher of strange (or other) Doctrins in the Church of Christ, that the Bishop in whose Diocess he is said to be a Presbyter, hath so long given way to his impiety: Et non virgâ Apostolica, virgáque ferreâ confringere vas inutile; and that he hath not rather broke in pieces with the Apostolick rod, a rod of iron, this so unprofitable a Vessel. In which as the good Father manifests his own zeal and fervour; so he declareth therewithal, what was the Bishops power and office in the present business.

The last part of Episcopal jurisdiction which we have to speak of, [unspec XIII] is the correction of ill manners, whether in the Presbyters or in the People; concerning which the A∣postle gives both power to Timothy,* 1.418 and command to use it. First, for the Presbyters, Against an Elder receive not an accusation but before two or three Witnesses; but if they be convicted, them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear. In the declaring of which power, I take for granted that the Apostle here by Elder, doth mean a Presbyter, according to the Ecclesiastical notion of that word;* 1.419 though I know that Chrysostom, and after him Theophylact and Oecumenius, do take it only for a man well grown in years. And then the meaning of Saint Paul will be briefly this, that partly in regard of the Devils malice, apt to calumniate men of that holy function; and partly to a∣void the scandal which may thence arise, Timothy, and in him all other Bishops should be very cautious in their proceedings against men of that profession. But if they find them guilty, on examination, then not to smother or conceal the matter, but censure and rebuke them openly, that others may take heed of the like offences. The Com∣mentaries under the name of Ambrose,* 1.420 do expound it so, Quoniam non facile credi debet de Presbytero crimen, &c. Because a crime or accusation is not rashly to be credited a∣gainst a Presbyter; yet if the same prove manifest and undeniable, Saint Paul com∣mandeth that in regard of his irregular conversation, he be rebuked and censured pub∣likely, that others may be thereby terrified: And this, saith he, non solum ordinatis sed & plebi proficit, will not be only profitable unto men in Orders, but to Lay people also. Herewith agreeth, as to the making of these Elders to be men in Orders, the Com∣ment upon this Epistle,* 1.421 ascribed to Hierom: Presbyters then are subject unto censure; but to whose censure are they subject? Not unto one anothers surely, that would breed confusion; but to the censure of their Bishop, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, saith Epiphanius;* 1.422 he speaks to Timothy, being a Bishop, not to receive an accusation against a Presbyter: Theophylact also saith the same. For having told us, that if a Presbyter upon examination of the business be found delinquent, he must be sharply and severely censured, that others may be terrified thereby; he adds, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that it becomes a Bishop (in such cases) to be stern and awful.* 1.423 Lyra ob∣serves the like in his Gloss or Postils, viz. that the proceedings against inferiour Clergy∣men, in foro exteriori, in a judiciary way, is a peculiar of the Bishops. But what need more be said than that of Beza,* 1.424 who noteth on these very words, that Timothy, to whom this power or charge was given, was President or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, at that time of the Ephesian Clergy: Which is a plain acknowledgment, in my opinion, that the cor∣rection of the Clergy by the law of God, doth appertain unto the Bishop, the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or President of the Presbytery, call him what you will. For what need we contend for words, when we have the matter? And this appeareth by the several Councils of Nice and Antioch, Sardica, Turin, Africa and Sevil; in all and every of the which, the censure and proceedings against a Presbyter, are left to their own Bishops severally; but a course taken therewithal for their ease and remedy, in case their own Bishops should proceed against them out of heat or passion.

For the Lay-people next, [unspec XIV] that Paul gave Timothy a power of correcting them, ap∣pears by the instructions which he gives him for the discharge of this authority towards all sorts of People, whether that they be old or young, of what sex soever. Old men, if they offend, must be handled gently, respect being had unto their years. Rebuke not an Elder,* 1.425 but entreat him as a Father: i. e. saith Chryfostom, take him not up with harshness and severity, but do it with such temperance and meekness as thou wouldest

do unto thy Father, if he gave offence. His reason is, because it is an irksome thing unto good persons to be reprehended, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 especially by one younger than themselves, as then Timothy was. The like regard was to be had to old Women also, for the self-same reason. As for the younger men, they were to be rebuked as Brethren, with greater freedom than before, but still with lenity. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the sawce of reprehension must be sweet, though the meat be sowre. Nor was this power committed only unto Timothy, but in him to all other Bishops, of all times and places, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, so saith Oecumenius.* 1.426 The function of a Bishop was not instituted in the Church of God, quasi Clero impositus inspector, as Beza hath it; that he might oversee the Clergy only, but for the well ordering and governance of all Gods People. Episcopi Graece, speculatores Latinè dicuntur, populi respectu, He that is called a Bishop in the Greek,* 1.427 saith Isidore, is called an Overseer in the Latine, and that in reference to the People. And then he gives this reason of it, quod speculetur & prospiciat populorum infra se positorum mores & vitam, because he overseeth the lives and conversation of the People which are under him. The like saith Austin, as to the reason of the name,* 1.428 and the intent of their preheminency; the like Paterius on the Psalms, and thither I refer the Reader. As for the execution of this power, how, and by whom the same was exercised, being a matter meerly practical, we shall encounter it hereafter, as occasion is, in the success and prosecution of this story. Only take this of Austin for a taste or relish, where say∣ing that there is no greater punishment in the Church than that condemnation,* 1.429 quam Episcopale judicium facit, which is pronounced by the Bishop: He adds, that notwith∣standing this, necessitas pastoralis habet separare ab ovibus sanis morbidam, the Pastor must needs separate the scabby and infected Sheep from the sound and healthy, lest the whole Flock be made obnoxious to so great a danger. What interest or concurrent jurisdiction the Presbyters did either challenge or enjoy in these publick censures, we shall see hereafter. But sure, for ought appears to me, S. Paul addresseth his discourse to the Bishop only; who if, in the succeeding Ages he used the Counsel and assistance of his Presbyters, in the affairs and weightier matters of the Church; he did but as a wary and wise man would on the like occasions.

I would here offer, if I might, some conjectural proofs, [unspec XV] that the description of a Bishop in the first of Timothy, is of a Bishop truly and properly so called, according as the word was used and appropriated by the Ancient Writers. I know the general current of Interpreters is against me in it, by whom the word Episcopus is said to signifie in that place, as well the Presbyter as the Bishop. Which I conceive they do upon this reason chiefly, because Saint Paul having prescribed the qualities which are required in a Bishop, passeth directly on to the description of a Deacon. But if we look upon it well, I doubt not but we shall perceive some reasons which may incline unto the con∣trary. For first, Saint Paul speaks of a Bishop in the singular number,* 1.430 but of infe∣riour Ministers in the plural. One Church, or City, though it had many Presbyters, had one Bishop only: And therefore we may reasonably conceive, that the Apostle speaking of a Bishop in the singular number, speaks of him in his proper and true ca∣pacity, as one distinguished from, and above the Presbyters. Secondly, the Apostle seemeth to require in him an Act of Government, as being a man, that is,* 1.431 to take a care of the Church of God; and thereupon gives order for an Inquisition to be had upon him, whether he hath ruled his own house well. Chrysostom hereupon observes that the Church is likened to an House or Family, wherein there is a Wife and Children, Men-servants and Maid-servants, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, all which are subject to the government of the Husband, who is the Father of the Family. So is it in the Church, saith he, the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or Governour whereof is to take care for Wi∣dows, Virgins. all Gods Sons and Servants. A care of too transcendent and sublime a nature, to be entrusted unto every common Presbyter, or discharged by him; who as our Hooker well observeth, though he be somewhat better able to speak,* 1.432 is as little to judge, as another man; and if not fit to judge, no fit man to govern. Thirdly,* 1.433 Saint Paul requireth in a Bishop, that he be given to Hospitality, i. e. that he receive the Stranger, entertain the Native, and in a word, admit all comers.* 1.434 Hierom doth so expound it, saying, that if a Lay-man entertain but two or three, hospitalitatis officium implebit, he hath exceeding well complied with all the rules of hospitality: Episcopus nisi omnes receperit, inhumanus est; but that the Bishop is accounted a Churl or Nig∣gard, if his House be not open unto all. Which howsoever it might possibly agree in those ancient times, to the condition of a Bishop, who had the keeping and disposing

of the Churches treasures: yet I can see no possibility how it could be expected from the Presbyter, that out of his poor pittance from the Sportula, he should be able to perform it. For I believe not that the Lord intended to work miracles daily, as in the lengthning and increasing the poor womans oil. Fourthly and lastly, it is required by Saint Paul,* 1.435 that his Bishop must not be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a Novice as our English reads it, and exceeding rightly; that is, as Chrysostom, and out of him Theophylact expound the word, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, one newly Catechised as it were, lately instructed in the faith. Now who knoweth not, but that in the beginnings of the Church, some of these new plants, these 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, must of necessity be taken into holy Orders, for the increase and propagation of the Gospel. The Presbyters were many, but the Bishops few. And therefore however there might be found sufficient Standards, upon the which to graft a Bishop; yet I can hardly find a possibility of furnishing the Garden of the Church with a fit number of Presbyters, unless we take them from the Nursery. Hence I col∣lect, that this description of a Bishop in S. Paul to Timothy, is of a Bishop truly and pro∣perly so called, and that it doth not also include the Presbyter. If then it be demanded whether S. Paul hath utterly omitted to speak of Presbyters, I answer, no; but that we have them in the next Paragraph, Diaconos similiter; which word howsoever in our last translation, it be rendred Deacons: Yet in our old translation, and in that of Coverdale, we read it Ministers, according to the general and native meaning of the word:* 1.436 An Exposition neither new, nor forced. Not new, for Calvin doth acknow∣ledge, alios ad Presbyteros referre Episcopo inferiores, that some referred those words to Presbyters, subordinate or inferior to the Bishop. Not forced, for if we search the Scripture, we shall there perceive that generally Diaconus is rendred Minister; and that not only in the Gospels, before that Deacons had been instituted in the Church of God, but also in S. Pauls Epistles, after the planting of the Church, when all the Officers therein had their bounds and limits. Thus the Apostle speaking of himself, and of Apollos,* 1.437 faith that they were 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Ministers by whom that People did believe; himself he calleth, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a Mini∣ster of the New Testament, 2 Cor. 3.6. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a Minister of God, 2 Cor. 6.4. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a Minister of the Gospel, Eph. 3.7. Coloss. 1.23. Thus Tychicus is called, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a faithful Minister, Ephes. 6.26. and again, Coloss. 4.7. and so is Epaphras entituled, Coloss. 1.7. Thus Timothy is called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 1 Thes. 3.2. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a good Minister, in this very Epistle; and finally is required in the next to this,* 1.438 not only to do the work of an Evangelist, but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to fulfil his Ministery. Hence I infer, that since Diaconus is a word of so large extent, as to include Apostles, Prophets, and Evan∣gelists, I see no inconvenience that can follow on it, if it include the office of the Presbyter or Elder also: And let the Bishop have the former Character to himself alone, to whom of right it doth belong. But this I only offer to consideration, as my private thoughts; not being so far wedded to mine own opinions, but that on better reasons I may be divorced, when ever they are laid before me.

CHAP. VI. Of the Estate of holy Church, particularly of the Asian Churches, to∣ward the latter days of S. John the Apoistle.

• 1. The time of S. John's coming into Asia.
• 2. All the Seven Churches, except Ephesus, of his Plantation.
• 3. That the Angels of those Churches were the Bishops of them, in the opinion of the Fathers.
• 4. And of some Protestant Divines of name and eminence.
• 5. Conclusive reasons for the same.
• 6. Who most like to be the Angel of the Church of Ephesus.
• 7. That Polycarpus was the Angel of the Church of Smyrna.
• 8. Touching the Angel of the Church of Per∣gamus, and of Thyatira.
• 9. As also of the Churches of Sardis, Phila∣delphia, and Laodicea.
• 10. What Successors these several Angels had in the several Churches.
• 11. Of other Churches founded in Episcopacy, by S. John the Apostle.
• 12. S. John deceasing, left the government of the Church to Bishops, as to the Successors of the Apostles.
• 13. The ordinary Pastors of the Church.
• 14. And the Vicars of Christ.
• 15. A brief view of the estate of holy Church in this first Century.

WE now proceed unto Saint John, and to the Churches of his time, those most especially which he did either plant or water: who living till the end of this present Century, and being the last Surviver of that Glorious company of the Apostles, could not but see the Church of Christ in her fullest growth, in her perfection, both for strength and beauty. Of this Apostle we find not any thing in Scripture, from his descent unto Samaria, when he accompanied Saint Peter thither,* 1.439 by the ap∣pointment of the residue of that goodly fellowship, until the writing of the Revela∣tion. The intervening passages of his life and preaching, we must make up out of such fragments of Antiquity, and records of Story, as are come safe unto our hands. Where first I must needs disallow the conceit of those, who carry him I know not how to Ephesus, making him an inhabitant there, and taking with him to that place, the Mother of our Lord and Saviour: which must needs be, if ever it had been at all, about the 44. year after Christs Nativity, that being the time wherein the Apostles and Disciples were dispersed abroad, upon the persecution raised by Herod.* 1.440 But that it was not then, nor a long time after, will appear by this, that when Paul came to preach and reside at Ephesus, which was in Anno 55. above ten years after, there was so little knowledg of the faith of Christ, that they had not so much as heard there was any Holy Ghost; being baptized only, as themselves confessed, unto John's baptism.* 1.441 A thing which could not possibly be supposed, without a great deal of reproach and ignominy to this blessed Apostle, had he been here a resiant, as by some reported. And after this, though we are well assured of his being here, yet then he could not have in houshold with him the blessed Mother of our Lord; who died, in their account that put it off until the latest, Anno 48. seven years before the coming of Saint Paul to Ephesus. And therefore I agree rather unto Epiphanius, as to the main and matter of his Negative, though not as to the reason of it. For where he tells us, that when JOHN went down to Asia, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,* 1.442 he took not the blessed Virgin with him; I hold it to be absolutely true, past contradi∣ction. But where he buildeth his negation upon an 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the silence of the Scripture in it; I hold that reason to be insufficient: there being many things of un∣doubted verity, whereof there is no mention in the Holy Scripture. And I agree too unto Epiphanius, where he tells us this,* 1.443 that Saint John's coming into Asia was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 when he began to be in years; the Holy Ghost then calling of him thither, as well to propagate the Gospel where it was not preached; as to con∣firm it where it had been shaken by the force of Heresie. Into what parts the Spirit did before command him, it is hard to say. Some likelyhood there is.* 1.444 that he did preach the Gospel amongst the Parthians, (some of which Nation had been present at Hierusalem at the first giving of the Holy Ghost) his first Epistle being inscribed, ad Parthos, as some Antients say.

But that he came at last to Asia, and there preached the Gospel, is a thing past que∣stion. [unspec II] Eusebius, out of Origen, doth expresly say it.* 1.445 And though that piece of Origen be lost out of which Eusebius took the same; yet we may take it on his word without more authority. Nor did he only preach the Gospel in those parts of Asia, strictly and properly so called; but he also planted many Churches, and founded in them many Bishopricks. All the seven Churches, except that of Ephesus, to which he writ his Revelation, were partly, if not totally his foundation: and in all them he constituted Bishops, as we shall manifest and declare anon. And as for Ephesus, although he came too late to plant it, yet he came time enough to water it; to settle and confirm the same: being much weakned and endangered by the sorceries and devices of Apollo∣nius Tyanaeus, who for some time did therein dwell; as also by the Heresies of Ebion and Cerinthus, who at that time lived, and therefore rightly doth Ignatius, who then lived also, joyn him with Paul and Timothy, as a Co-founder of that Church.* 1.446 But being in the middle of his course, he was sent prisoner unto Rome, Anno 92. thence confined to Patmos, where he continued till the death of the Emperour Domitian, which was in Anno 99. during which time he writ the Revelation. And of those Churches I conceive it was that Tertullian speaketh, where pleading in defence of the Catholick Faith, delivered by the Apostles, to the Churches by them severally plant∣ed, and by the Bishops of those Churches taught, and in their successions: he thus brings them in, "Habemus & Johannis alumnas Ecclesias, &c. We have, saith he,* 1.447 the Churches founded by Saint John. For howsoever Marcion doth reject his Revelation, Or∣do tamen Episcoporum, yet the succession of their Bishops reckoned up unto their original, will stand for John to be their founder. And probable at their request it was, that

he writ his Gospel.* 1.448 For that he writ it at the intreaty of the Asian Bishops, Roga∣tus ab Asiae Episcopis, is positively affirmed by Hierom: though like enough it is, that other Bishops besides those of his own foundation, might contribute their requests, and importunities to so good a purpose, being all equally afflicted with the pest of Heresies.

The quality and condition of these Asian Churches, [unspec III] Saint John doth punctually describe in his Revelation, written in Anno 97. when as he had been four or five years confined to Patmos. It seemeth those Churches, most of them at the least, on the calami∣ty which befel the Apostle in his deportation, being deprived of the benefit of so Divine and excellent a Spirit, and pressed by the importunity of these active Hereticks, willing to make the best advantage of the present time, began to stagger in the faith, wax cold in their affection to the Gospel, and to give way to such false Teachers as were crept in amongst them, to rectify what was amiss amongst them, and to inform them of their er∣rours did he direct unto them his Apocalypse,* 1.449 To the seven Churches in Asia; so it doth begin. But when he comes unto particulars, to give them every one their particular charge, from him who walked in the midst of the Golden Candlesticks; then he addresseth his discourse to the Angels only,* 1.450 the Angels of those several Churches. Unto the Angel of the Church of Ephesus; and to the Angel of the Church of Smyrna; and to the Angel of the Church of Pergamus; & sic de caeteris. Now ask the Fathers what those Angels were, and they will tell you that they were the Bishops of those several Churches. Saint Austin writing on these words, Ʋnto the Angel of the Church of Ephesus, &c. makes this observation,* 1.451 Divina voce sub Angeli nomine laudatur praepositus Ecclesiae, that the Bishop or Governour of the Church, (remember what was said before of the word Praepositus) is praised by the voice of Christ,* 1.452 under the name of an Angel: But first he gives a reason of his resolution, shewing that this Expostulation could not be applyed to those Ministring spirits in the Heavens, because they still retained their first Love to God; and therefore must be understood, de praepositis Ecclesiae, of the Rulers or Governours of the Church, who had given way to false Apostles. The like occurreth in his Comment on the Revelation, wherein he maketh the Angels of these Churches, to be Episcopi aut praepositi Ecclesiarum, the Bishops or Rulers of the same. The Commentaries under the name of Ambrose, pointing unto this place of the Apocalypse,* 1.453 give us this short note, Angelos Episcopos dicit, that by Angels there he meaneth Bishops. And these ascribed to Hierom, writing on those words, Because of the Angels,* 1.454 1 Cor. 11. observes the same, Angelos ecclesiis presidentes dicit, that there by Angels Saint Paul intends the Presidents or Rulers of the Churches. Final∣ly, Oecumenius saith the same,* 1.455 who speaking of the seven Churches in Asia, to whom Saint John addresseth his Discourses, observe, that John ascribes to them, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, an equal or proportionable number of governing Angels. And on those words,* 1.456 the seven stars are the Angels of the seven Churches, makes this gloss or Comment, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that he cal∣leth these Angels, governours of Churches by the name of stars, because they borrow all their light from the Sun of Righteousness.

For Protestant Writers which affirm the same, [unspec IV] I begin with those which speak most generally and indefinitely:* 1.457 where first we have Sebastian Meyer; Ecclesiarum Prae∣fecti, & stellae & Angeli, in sacris literis dicuntur; the Governours of Churches are called, saith he, in holy Scripture, by the name of Stars, and Angels. Bullenger to the same effect, Angeli sunt legati Dei, Pastores Ecclesiarum, the Angels are the Messengers of God, the Pastors of the Churches; in which, lest possibly we might mistake his meaning, in the word Pastor, he tells us not long after, that he means the Bishop, for speaking of the Angel, or the Pastor of the Church of Smyrna, he tells us that he was that Polycarpus, as it was indeed, Ordinatus ab Apostolis, ab ipso inquam Johanne Epi∣scopus, who was ordained Bishop of that Church by the Apostles, nay by John him∣self. Paraeus is as general as the other two, but far more express. Episcopos vocat stel∣las, &c.* 1.458 The Bishops are called Stars, saith he, because they ought to out-shine others, aswell in purity of Doctrine, as sincerity of Conversation in the Church of God: eosdem Angelos vocat, quia sunt Legati Dei ad Ecclesiam, and they are also called Angels, because they are the Legats or Embassadours of God to his holy Church. And lest we should mistake our selves, and him, in the word Episcopus, he laboureth to find out the Bishop of each several Church, as we shall see hereafter in that inquisition: for those who speak to the particular,* 1.459 we begin with Beza, who on those words, un∣to the Angel of the Church of Ephesus, gives this Annotation. Angelo, i. e. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,

quem nimirum oportuit imprimis de his rebus admoneri, &c. To the Angel, that is, saith he, to the chief President, whom it behoved to have the notice of the charge there given, and by him to the rest of his Colleagues, and the whole Congregation: but fearing lest this Exposition might give some advantage, for the upholding of the Hierarchie, which he so laboured to pull down, he adds, de proprio, that notwithstanding this acknowledgment, Episcopal authority, being a thing of mans invention, hinc statui, nec potest, nec debet, nor may, nor ought to have any ground from hence. Finally, Marlorat himself on those very words,* 1.460 shews that however there were many things in the Church of Ephesus, which required Reformation, both in the Clergy and the people; Non tamen populum aggreditur, sed Clerum, yet the Apostle doth not apply himself un∣to the people, but the Clergy. Nor doth he fashion his discourse to the Clergy gene∣rally, Sed ad Principem Cleri, Episcopum utique, but to the chief or principal of the Clergy, which was the Bishop.

Nay, Marlorat goes further yet, and he as he layeth down his interpretation, [unspec V] so he doth also give a reason of it; and such a one as may well satisfie any man of reason.* 1.461 His reason is, Nam Pastor non modo pro propriis, &c. Because the Pastor is not only to ren∣der an account to the supream Judg, for his own sins alone, but for the sins of all his flock, if any of them by his sloth or negligence do chance to perish. And certainly this reason is of special use and efficacy to the point in hand. For if the Lord do look for an ac∣count at the Pastors hand, for every sheep that shall be lost by his sloth or negligence: it must needs follow thereupon, that those of whom so strict a reckoning is expected must not have power only to persuade and counsel, but also to correct and censure, and by their own proper and innate authority, to rectifie such things as are amiss in their several charges. The Son of God is neither so unjust, as that the Pastor should be charged with those enormities, which he hath no authority to amend or rectifie: nor so forgetful as to threaten and rebuke the Pastor, not only for the peoples faults, but the Errata of the Presbyters, in case he were not trusted with a greater power than any of the rest, for that end and purpose. Which being so, and that our Saviour by Saint John doth send out his summons neither unto the Church in general, nor to the Presbyters in common, but to the Angel of each Church in the singular number: it is most plain and evident, as I conceive, that in the time of writing the Apocalypse, as long time before it, the Church of Christ had certain Pastors, of more eminent note, when they (as we) intituled Bishops, which governed as well the Presbyters, as the rest of the Flock; and those the Son of God acknowledgeth for stars and Angels. And howsoever the inferiour Pastors both are, and may be cal∣led Angels, in a general sense, as Messengers and Ministers of God Almighty: yet if it be the Angel in the singular number, the Angel in the way of eminence and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, it is peculiar only to the Bishop.

Now that each Church of those remembred in that Book, had his proper Angel, [unspec VI] and that they were not governed by a Corporation or Colledg of Presbyters, to whom those several Epistles might be sent, by the name of Angels, the word Angel being to be taken collectively, and not individually, as some men suppose, is in the next place to be shewed. And first for proof,* 1.462 there is a pregnant evidence in a Discourse or Treatise touching the Martyrdom of Timothy: the Author of the which relates, that after Saint John the Apostle was revoked from his exile, by the sentence of Nerva,* 1.463 he be∣took himself to the Metropolis of Ephesus: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and being assisted with the presence of the seven Bishops, he took upon himself the government of the Metropolis of the Ephesians, and there continued preaching the Do∣ctrine of salvation till the time of Trajan. Which as it is an evident and convincing proof, that the seven Churches had their several Bishops, to each Church one Bishop: so is it no such difficult matter, to find out most of them by name, and what Church each of them did govern. And first for Ephesus,* 1.464 some have conceived that Timothy was still alive, and Bishop at that time when the Apocalypse was written: which hot∣ly is defended by Alcasar, against Ribera, Lyra, and Pererius, who opine the contrary. But surely Timothy it could not be, as doth appear in part by that which was alledged out of the Treatise of his Martyrdom, which if it were not written by Polycrates, is yet very antient, and authentick: wherein he is conceived to be dead before: but principally by the quality and condition of that blessed Evangelist, so plentifully en∣dued with the Holy Ghost, so eminent in piety, and all heavenly graces, that no man can conceive him lyable to the accusation, with which the Angel of that Church is charged. And therefore it must either be that John, when (on the death of Timo∣thy,

as I conceive) Saint John ordained Bishop of this Church, as is reported in the Constitutions,* 1.465 ascribed to Clemens: or else Onesimus, another of the Successors of Timothy in the See of Ephesus, who is intituled Bishop of it in the Epistle of Igna∣tius, written to that Church; within twelve years after the writing of the Revelation. In which Epistle Ignatius blessing God for so good a Bishop,* 1.466 admonisheth the people of their duty, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in submitting themselves unto his judg∣ment, or concurring with it, as their whole Presbytery did: which harmony of the Bishop and his Presbyters, he doth compare 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 unto the concord of the Strings and Harp. In which he speaks if you observe, as of a Bishop that had been long confirmed, and setled in his place of Government; and knew the temper of his people: one that was vested with a constant, and fixt preheminence above his Pres∣byters, not with a temporary Presidency, and no more than so.

But whatsoever doubt or scruple may be made, [unspec VII] about Onesimus, his being Bishop, or Angel at this time, of the Church of Ephesus; certain I am, there can be none pre∣tended against Polycarpus, as if he were not then the Angel of the Church of Smyrna: he being made Bishop of that See 13 years before,* 1.467 as Bullinger computes the time, and holding it a long while after, no less than 74 years, as the Annals reckon it, with∣out vicissitude or alteration. Now that this Polycarpus was Bishop of this Church of Smyrna, appears by such a cloud of Witnesses, as he that questioneth it, may with equal reason,* 1.468 make doubt of yesterday. And first we have Ignatius Bishop of An∣tioch, one of his Co-temporaries, who taking him in transitu, as he was led from Syria towards Rome to suffer Martyrdom, did after write to him an Epistle, in which he stileth him, in the superscription, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Bishop of the Church of Smyrna.* 1.469 Irenaeus, one of his Disciples, and who had often heard the good man discourse of his conversation with Saint John, reporteth that he was not only taught by the Apostles, and had conversed with many of those who had seen Christ in the flesh, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; but also was by them appointed Bishop of the Church in Smyrna. Next comes in the whole Church of Smyrna,* 1.470 in their Encyclical Epistle of his death, and Martyr∣dom, where he is called an Apostolical and Prophetical Doctor, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and Bishop of the Catholick Church of Smyrna. After them speaks Polycrates,* 1.471 Bishop of Ephesus, one of the Successours of Onesimus, and so by consequence his Neighbour, who being 38 years of age at the time of the death of Polycarpus, attesteth to him, saying amongst other things, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that he had been both Bishop and Martyr in Smyrna.* 1.472 Tertul∣lian who lived about the same time with Polycrates, though in another Clime or Re∣gion, is more particular in the point: not only making him Bishop of Smyrna, as the others do; but à Johanne collocatum refert, making him to be placed or establish∣ed there by Saint John the Apostle.* 1.473 From these hands, and no doubt from many others, it came at last to Eusebius, Bish. of Caesarea, by whom it is affirmed that he was made Bishop of the Church of Smyrna, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, by those which had beheld the Lord, and were his Ministers. Saint Hierom finally doth inform us,* 1.474 that he was a Disciple of Saint Johns, & ab eo Smyrnae Episcopus or∣dinatus, and by him ordained Bishop of Smyrna. By which it is most clear and evi∣dent that he was the Angel or Bishop of this Church, and thereto constituted by Saint John, other of the Apostles and Disciples of our Lord and Saviour, concurring in the Ordination, No titular or nominal Bishop only, but such a one as had a body of Presbyters assistant and subservient to him, as doth most evidently appear out of Ig∣natius his Epistle unto those of Smyrna;* 1.475 wherein he telleth them, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. that they ought not to do any thing, no not so much as to administer the Sacrament, without the consent and approbation of their Bishop.

The Angel of the Church of Pergamus is next in order; [unspec VIII] but who this was, is not so easie to determine. That there had been a Bishop of this Church before, is proved by Paraeus out of Aretas Caesariensis,* 1.476 who makes Antipas (whom we find mentioned Apo∣cal. 2.13.) to be the Pastor of this Church under the Empire of Domitian, who being cruelly put to death by the Pergamenians, successor ejus haud dubiè fuit iste, ad quem scribit, his successour, as there Paraeus doth observe, must out of question be the man, to whom as to the Angel of that Church, these things are written. And he informs us this withal, that similis supplicii metu, for fear of the like punishment which Antipas suffered, though he continued constant in the faith of Christ, he might grow more remiss and negligent in looking to his Pastoral Office. So then the Angel of this

Church was Pergamensis Episcopus, the Bishop of Pergamus, as he plainly calls him;* 1.477 and possibly may be that Gaius whom Clemens makes to be ordained Bishop of this Church by the hands of some of the Apostles. Or if not he, yet questionless some one particular person, as Paraeus saith: this we may rely upon, though his name we know not. Next is the Angel of the Church of Thyatira, Antistes Thyatirensis, that is,* 1.478 the Bishop of Thyatira, saith Paraeus. That Thyatira had a Bishop, as other the seven Churches had, was affirmed before. And probably the Bishop of it at this time, might be that Carpus, who by the name of Carpus Bishop of Thyatira did suffer Martyrdom, during the persecution raised by Antoninus; whereof consult the Martyrologies,* 1.479 com∣pared with Eusebius, lib. 4. However we may take what Paraeus gives us, that the Angel of this Church was the Bishop of it, one singular and individual Person, to whom our Saviour doth direct his charge; though there be somewhat in the Text which is alledged to the contrary. For whereas in the two former Epistles, and the be∣ginning of the present, the stile is singular, I know thy works,* 1.480 and I have somewhat against thee, here on a suddain, as it were, the stile is altered, and it is Vobis autem dico, but I say to you, and unto the rest in Thyatira.* 1.481 Hence some infer, that by the word Angel in that place, is meant not any one singular person, but the whole company of Presbyters; and by the rest, the residue of that People there: the people governed, and the gover∣nours in the plural number. But this as I conceive, will avail but little; these altera∣tions or enallages of number being no rare matters in the Scripture, as doth appear by that so memorable place in the first of Timothy, Salvabitur autem si permanserint,* 1.482 where the Apostle doth begin in she, and end in they. Besides it is observed, that the anti∣enter and better Copies read it without the copulative, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,* 1.483 I say to you the rest in Thyatira; the spirit there addressing his discourse to those godly men that had not known the depths of Satan. And so, besides the antient Copy sent hither by the Patriarch of Constantinople, and cited by my L. B. of Exeter,* 1.484 doth Primasius read it. Vobis autem dico, reliqui qui estis Thyatirae. Paraeus also doth observe, Veterem sine copula, that the old Latine hath not the conjunction; and that Andreas and Montanus do adhere to that. So that for all this observation, the Angel of this Church was a singular person. And this doth further yet appear (since we are fallen upon these Criti∣cisms) by some antient readings of the 20. verse. For whereas now we read in our usual Copies, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the woman Jesebel,* 1.485 the old Greek Copy from Constantinople, writ above 1300 years ago, doth read it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, thy Wife Jesebel, and so doth that also of Aretas Caesariensis. And this doth seem to be the ancienter and the truer reading, as being followed by S. Cyprian and Primasius also;* 1.486 (the first of which lived 1400 years agone) in whom we read uxorem tuam. And though I grant that the Original standing thus may be translated thy woman Jesebel, or that woman of thine Jesebel, as I perceive some men would have it; yet then it must be granted therewithal, that the Angel of this Church was one singular individual person, not a body collective. It could not otherwise be thine, but yours.

The fifth in order of these Angels, is he of Sardis, Ecclesiae Antistes, [unspec IX] the Bishop of that Church, as Paraeus noteth; and he observes withal, veteres quosdam,* 1.487 that some ancient writers conceive that Melito, of whom Eusebius speaketh, lib. 4. cap. 26. was then the Bishop of this Church, and probably it might be so. For howsoever he ex∣cepteth against this opinion, because that Melito was Bishop of this place under Anto∣ninus, tamdiu vero Melitonem Sardibus praefuisse non est verisimile, and therefore that it is not likely that he should so long hold this Bishoprick; yet granting it in Polycarpus, tam∣diu Smyrnensibus praefuisse, that he was Bishop of Smyrna for as long a time: I see no reason why the like may not be granted of the other also: As for his other reason, that Melito is commended for his sanctimony, and the Angel here accused for his Hypocrisie; it may well be, that though this Angel were accused of Hypocrisie, at the present time, yet having many good things in him, he might be brought unto a sense thereof, upon this admonition from our Lord and Saviour, and so become a careful and a painful Pastor. So that the ancient Writers, as Paraeus saith, reporting that this Angel was that Melito, may be believed, for ought I see unto the contrary, in that affirmation, and this I am the rather inclined to think,* 1.488 because I find a tract of Melito's inscribed Onesimo Fratri, unto Onesimus his Brother, who was the Angel of the Church of Ephesus, as be∣fore was said, which shews they lived together in one age or time. The Angel of the Church of Philadelphia, must be looked on next, whom some conceive to be Quadra∣tus, a Scholar or Disciple of the Apostles, of whom Eusebius speaks, lib. 3. cap. 37.* 1.489 But surely if Eusebius speaks of him at all, it is as Bishop of Athens, not of Philadelphia,

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

unless perhaps we may conceive that being first Bishop of Philadelphia, he was translated afterwards to Athens, (Publius the Bishop being dead, whom he there succeeded) which I somewhat doubt. But whatsoever was his name, or whether he were that Demetrius, who as Clemens saith, was by S. Paul made Bishop of this place; I take him for the very man whom Ignatius speaks of in his Epistle to this People: where speaking of their Bishop, he tells them this, that at the very first sight of him he did plainly see, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,* 1.490 that neither of his own desire, nor by choice of man was he preferred unto that place, but by the love of Jesus Christ, and God the Father; commending him for modesty, and for a careful walking in Gods Command∣ments, being like Zachary, without reproof; and finally, not only free from passion, but perfectly adorned with all kind of vertue. A commendation very well agreeing with that bestowed upon this Angel by the Holy Ghost; as did the Character of the Angel of the Church of Smyrna, agree unto the quality of Polycarpus, the then Bishop of it; it being generally observed, as it is most true, that only these two Angels are presented to us without fault or blemish. Last of all, for the Angel of the Church of Laodicea,* 1.491 Paraeus, as before conceiveth, that he was the Bishop; quis vero fuerit, nos latet; but who this Bishop was, that he cannot tell. Only he notes him for a man, qui Episcopi titulum perfunctoriè sustineret, that only had the name of Bishop, but not one lively spark of Piety, being wholly taken up with luxury and the love of money. But whether he were Lucius mentioned by S. Paul, Rom. 16. whom Dorotheus makes to be Bishop here; or one Archippus, said by Clemens to be the Bishop of this Church; or Sagaris,* 1.492 who by Polycrates is affirmed to be the Bishop of this place, I am not able to say positively: Though I incline rather unto Sagaris, whose Martyrdom being touched upon by Melito,* 1.493 in his books de Paschate, is a strong argument that he departed some good time before him, and so most like to be the man. Nor is it any obstacle unto this conjecture,* 1.494 that Christ did threaten to spew this Angel out of his mouth, being he called him to repentance,* 1.495 and promised him a throne, if he overcame.

To bring this business to an end, [unspec X] these Angels as they had a singularity, in refe∣rence unto that personal Authority which each of them enjoyed in his several Church: so had they all and every one of them a singularity in the succession thereunto. For sure it were no difficult matter to a diligent eye, to find out many of their Successors in those several Sees, since that of Laodicea, which was in most apparent danger to lose its Candlestick, retained a continual and constant successions of Bishops there, from the death of Sagaris to the Nicene Council, and a long time after. Where, by the way, I must needs rectifie Paraeus in this one particular, who shewing that this Church of Laodicea,* 1.496 did afterwards recover and get strength again, instanceth in Anatotius and Stephanus, both eminent and learned men, and both Bishops there; whereas indeed they were not Bishops of this Laodicea, but of Laodicea in Syria, (called antiently Seleucia Tetrapolis) as he might easily have seen by a more careful looking on those places of Eusebius, which himself hath cited. Now in the Nicene Council, if we like of that, we find the Successors of those several Angels, subscribing severally to the Acts thereof,* 1.497 amongst other Prelates of that time; as viz. Menophanes of Ephesus, Euty∣chius, B. of Smyrna, for the province of Asia; Artemidorus B. of Sardis, Soron or Serras B. of Thyatira, Ethymasius B. of Philadelphia, for the Province of Lydia; and finally Nunechlus B. of this Laodicea,* 1.498 for the Province of Phrygia, for Theodotus, who by Bilson is affirmed to have subscribed as Bishop of this Laodicea, was Bishop of Laodicea in the Province of Syria, amongst the Bishops of which Province his subscription is; which I marvel that most learned and industrious Prelate did not see. And though we find not him of Pergamus amongst them there, yet after in the Council of Chalcedon, doth his name occur. In fine, by the person that speaketh to the Pastors, and those seven Churches, and the name he gives them, it is plain and evident that their vocation was not only confirmed by the Lord himself, but their Commission expressed. He speak∣eth that hath best right to appoint what Pastors he would have to guide his Flock, till himself come to judgment: The name he giveth them, sheweth their power and charge to be delivered them from God; and consequently, each of them in his several charge and City, must have Commission to reform the errors and abuses in their se∣veral Churches, at whose hands it shall be required, by him that shall sit judge to take account of their doings. And so much for the Angels of the seven Churches in Asia, remembred in the book of the Revelation.

But to go forwards to S. John, [unspec XI] the Author of it, immediately on his return from Patmos, he sets himself unto the reformation of these Churches, calling together the

Bishops of the same, as before we shewed; and governing both those and the adjoyn∣ing Churches of Asia minor, by his Apostolical Authority and preheminence. Which having done on the intreaty and request of some godly men, he went unto the neigh∣bour Nations, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,* 1.499 in some places instituting or ordaining Bishops, in others rectifying and reforming the whole Churches; and in a word, by the direction of the spirit, founding a Clergy in the same. It seems the journey was not far, the places which he visited being said to be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the neighbouring Nations; and indeed the Apostle was now grown too old to endure much travel, being near an hundred at this time. And therefore I conceive that the Episcopal Sees of Traellis and Magnesia, were of his foundation:* 1.500 being Cities not far off, and after reckoned as the Suffragans of the Archb. or Metropolitan of Ephesus. Certain I am, that they were both of them Sees of Bishops, as doth appear by the Epistles of Ignatius; in which he nameth Polybius Bishop of Trallis,* 1.501 and Damas Bishop of Magnesia; and those not titular Bishops only, but such as were to be obeyed, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, without gain-saying; and without whose allowance there was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 layed upon the Presbyters, who were not to do any thing in their mi∣nistrations, but by his authority. One other Bishop there is said to be of S. John's or∣daining, viz. the young man which Clemens speaks of,* 1.502 whose aspect being liked by the Apostle, he left him to the care and tutorage of an ancient Bishop of those parts. And when the Young man afterwards for want of careful looking to, became debauched, and made himself the Captain of a crew of Out-laws, the blessed Saint with much ado reclaimed him from that wretched course, and afterwards having new moulded him, and prepared him for it, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, made him a Bishop in the Church. But whether that the word will bear that sense, as to the making him a Bishop, or that it only doth imply that S. John placed him in some function of the holy Ministery, Ec∣clesiae ministeri•• praefecit, as Christophorson reads it, I will not contend. Only I cannot but observe, that where the Bishop to whose care he was committed, is in the prosecution of the story, called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; some have collected from the same,* 1.503 that Bishops in those times were no more than Presbyters. But this will prove, if better looked on, but a plain mistake: the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in that place, noting the Bishops age, and not his office, as doth appear by that which followeth in the story, where he is called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which certainly doth signifie an ancient man, but not a Presbyter.

The Asian Churches being thus setled and confirmed in the faith of Christ, [unspec XII] partly by the pains and travel of this blessed man, but principally by the Gospel, and other pieces of Divine holy Scripture, by him written and published about this time,* 1.504 he went unto the Lord his God in a good old age, being then 98 years old, as Beda reckoneth in the beginning of the second century, Anno 101. according to the computation of Baronius: The Church at his departure he left firmly grounded in all the points of faith and do∣ctrine, taught by Christ our Saviour, as well setled in the outward government, the polity and administration of the same, which had been framed by the Apostles, accor∣ding to the pattern and example of their Lord and Master. For being that the Church was born of Seed immortal, and they themselves though excellent and divine, yet still mortal men; it did concern the Church in an high degree to be provided of a perpe∣tuity, or if you will, an immortality of Overseers, both for the sowing of this Seed, and for the ordering of the Church, or the field it self. This since they could not do in person, they were to do it by their Successors, who by their Office were to be the or∣dinary Pastors of the Church, and the Vicars of Christ. Now if you ask the Fathers who they were that were accounted in their times and ages, the Successors of the Apo∣stles; they will with one accord make answer that the Bishops were. To take them as they lived in order, it is affirmed expresly by Irenaeus,* 1.505 one who conversed familiatly with Polycarpus, S. John's Disciple. He speaking of those Bishops which were ordained by the Apostles, and shewing what perfections were in them required, then adds, Quos & Successores relinquebant sunm ipsorum locum magisterii tradentes, whom they did leave to be their Successors, delivering unto them their own place of government.* 1.506 S. Cyprian next writing to Cornelius, then Bishop of Rome, exhorts him to endeavour to preserve that unity, Per Apostolos nobis Successoribus traditam, which was commended by the Apostles unto them their Successors. So in another place, speaking of the commission which our Saviour gave to his Apostles, he adds that it was also given to those Praepositi,* 1.507 rulers and governours of the Church, Qui Apostolis Vicaria ordinatione succedunt, which by their ordination have been substituted as Successors to them. And lest we should mistake his meaning in the word Prupositi, Firmilianut, anothe ••i shop of those times,* 1.508

in an Epistle unto Cyprian, useth instead thereof the word Episcopi, not varying in the rest from those very words which Cyprian had used before.* 1.509 Hierom, although conceived by some to be an adversary of the Bishops, doth affirm as much. Where speaking of Montanus and his faction, he shews this difference betwixt them and the Church of God, viz. that they had cast the Bishop downwards, made him to be the third in order, Apud nos Apostolorum locum Episcopi tenent, but in the Catholick-Church of Christ, the Bishops held the place or room of the Apostles. The like he saith in his Epistle to Euagrius,* 1.510 where speaking of the parity of Bishops amongst themselves, that the emi∣nency of their Churches did make no difference in their authority; he gives this reason of the same, Omnes Apostolorum successores sunt, because they were all Successors to the Apostles. So also in his Comments on the Book of Psalms, writing upon those words,* 1.511 Instead of thy Fathers thou shalt have Children, he tells us that at first, the Apo∣stles were the Fathers of the Church; but they being gon, Habes pro his Episcopos filios, the Church had Bishops in their stead: which though they were her Children, as be∣gotten by her, Sunt tamen & patres tui, yet they were also Fathers to her, in that she was directed and guided by them.* 1.512 S. Austin on the same words hath the like conceit, the Fathers of the Church, saith he, were the Lords Apostles, Pro Apostolis filii nati sunt tibi, constituti sunt Episcopi, instead of those Fathers, the Church hath Children, Bi∣shops that be ordained in her, such whom she calleth Fathers, though her self begat them, & constituit in Sedibus patrum, and placed them in the seats or thrones of those holy Fathers.* 1.513 The like the same Saint Austin in another place, to the same effect. The root, saith he, of Christian Religion, is by the seats of the A∣postles, & Successiones Episcoporum, and the succession of the Bishops, dispersed and propagated over all the world.* 1.514 And so S. Gregory discoursing of the power of binding and loosing, committed by the Lord unto his Apostles, applies it thus: Horum nunc in Ecclesiâ locum Episcopi tenent, that now the Bishops hold their places in the Church of Christ. Not that the Bishops do succeed them in their personal graces, their mighty power of working Miracles, speaking with tongues, giving the Holy Ghost, and others, such as these, which were meerly temporary; but in their Pastoral charge and go∣vernment, as the chief Rulers of the Church, the ordinary Pastors of the Flock of Christ.

Now that the Bishops are the ordinary Pastors of the Church, [unspec XIII] and so conceived to be by the ancient Fathers, will be made evident by as good authority as the point be∣fore. Ignatius,* 1.515 who conversed with most of the Apostles, writing unto the Antiochians, requireth them to call to mind Euodius (who was his Predecessor in the See of Antioch) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,* 1.516 their most blessed Pastor. Tertullian discoursing on those words of Christ, The hireling seeth the Woolf coming and fleeth; but that the good Shepherd layeth down his life for the Sheep, Joh. 10. inferreth thereupon, Praepositos Ec∣clesiae in persecutione fugere non oportere, that the Prelates or Governours of the Church are not to fly in persecution. By which it is most clear, (not to dispute the truth of his assertion) that Pastor & Praepositus Ecclesiae do come both to one.* 1.517 S. Cyprian in his tract de Aleatore, is more plain and positive, Nam ut constaret nos, i. e. Episcopos, Pa∣stores esse ovium Spiritualium, &c. that it might evidently appear, saith he, that we the Bishops are the Pastors of the Flock of Christ: He said to Peter, feed my Sheep. And in another place, (for fear the former Book may prove none of his) expostulating with Pupianus,* 1.518 who charged him, as it seemeth, for some defect in his administration, he thus drives the point. Behold, saith he, for these six years, Nec fraternitas babu∣erit Episcopum, neither the Brother-hood hath had a Bishop, nor the People a Praepositus, or Ruler, nor the Flock a Pastor, nor the Church a Governour, nor Christ a Prelate, nor God a Priest. Where plainly, Pastor and Episcopus, and so all the rest are made to be the same one function. More clearly in another place of the same Epistle, where he defineth a Church to be Plebs sacerdoti adunata, & Pastori suo grex adhaerens; that is to say, a People joyned or united rather to their Priest, a Flock adhering to their Pa∣stor. Where by Sacerdos, as before, (and in other Authors of the first times) he meaneth no other than a Bishop, as doth appear by that which followeth. Ʋnde scire debes Episcopum in Ecclesia, &c. From whom thou oughtest to understand, saith he, the Bishop to be in the Church, and the Church to be also in the Bishop; and that whoever is not with the Bishop, is not in the Church. Optatus saith the same in brief,* 1.519 by whom Pastor sine grege, & Episcopus sine populo, a Bishop without a Church or People, and a Pastor without a Flock are joyned together as Synonyma. S. Austin speaking of two sorts of Over-seers in the fold of Christ, some of them being Children,

and the others hirelings: then adds, Praepositi autem qui filii sunt, Pastores sunt,* 1.520 the Rulers which are Children (of the Church) they are the Pastors. And in another place not long since cited, speaking of Episcopale judicium, the condemnation that at∣tends the Bishops sentence; he presently subjoyns, Pastoralis tamen necessitas,* 1.521 that yet the necessity incumbent on the Pastoral Office, doth many times inflict such sen∣tences for the publick safety of the Flock. I might be infinite in this search, but that I have spoke somewhat to the point already: and am moreover saved all further labour in it, by our learned Andrews, affirming positively and expresly,* 1.522 Apud veteres Pastorum nomen vix adhiberi, nisi cum de Episcopis loquuntur, the name of Pastor is scarce used among the Ancients, but when they have occasion to speak of Bishops. And Binius in his Notes upon the Councils, excepts against a fragment of the Synod of Rhemes, said to be held Anno 630. as not of that antiquity which is there pretend∣ed: and that he doth upon this reason only, Eo quod titulum ••astoris tribuat Parocho, because the stile of Pastor is there given to the common Presbyter,* 1.523 contrary to the usage of those elder times.

And certainly it is no wonder that it should be so, [unspec XIV] that he who is Episcopus & Pastor animarum, the Bishop and Pastor of our Souls, as Saint Peter calls him,* 1.524 should confer on them both his Titles: since he hath substituted and appointed them to be his Vi∣cars here on Earth. The Pope may challenge, if he will, this Title to himself alone: but since antiquity hath given it to all Bishops equally, to every one as much as to him of Rome. Saint Ambrose hath resolved it generally,* 1.525 Episcopus personam habet Christi, the Bishop, saith he, susteineth the person of Christ, and therefore every Wo∣man ought to behave her self before the Bishop, as before her Judg: giving this rea∣son therewithal, Quia Vicarius domini est, because he is the Vicar of the Lord. The Commentaries on Saint Matthew, ascribed to Chrysostom, doth affirm the same:* 1.526 where shewing that such men as persecuted or molested those of the holy Sacerdotal Order, were either Gentiles, or at least sordid and sensless Christians: he gives his reason for the same: Quia nec intelligunt, nec considerant, sacerdotes Christi Vicarios esse, be∣cause they neither understand nor do consider, that the Bishops, (whom he there meaneth by Sacerdotes) are the Vicars of Christ. Saint Austin to the same effect,* 1.527 as before, Saint Ambrose. The Bishop is to be more pure and pious than another man, for he seemeth to sustein the person of God: Est enim Vicarius ejus, for he is his Vi∣car. The Fathers in the Council of Compeigne, Anno 833. thus, Scire omnes convenit,* 1.528 it behoveth all men to understand what is the nature of the Government or Ministry of Bishops, Quos constat esse Christi Vicarios, who, as it evidently appears, are the Vicars of Christ. Nay even Blesensis,* 1.529 though he lived and writ when the Papacy was at the height, makes this description of a Bishop. Ordinatur Christi Vicarius, Ecclesiae Praelatus, &c. He is ordained a Vicar of Christ, a Prelate of the Church, a Father of men, and a Pastor of Souls: So far the Ancients have attested to the present business, and yet there is one Testimony more, which as it is more ancient, so it is as pertinent as any hitherto produced, viz. The Declaration of the Fathers in the Council of Carthage, Anno 258. or rather the attestation of the Fathers to that which was affirmed by Clarus of Muscala, one of the Bishops there assembled, who being to give his Vote upon the business then in agitation, first thus laid his grounds.* 1.530 Manifesta est senten∣tia Domini nostri, &c. The judgment of our Lord and Saviour JESƲS Christ is plain and evident, bequeathing that authority unto his Apostles, which had been given him by his Father, to which Apostles we are now the successours, eadem pote∣state Ecclesiam Domini gubernantes, governing the Church by that authority, which they had before. In which we see a clear and manifest derivation of this power, this Vicarship, from God the Father unto Christ, from Christ to his Apostles, and by them also to the Bishops, and their successours in the Church for ever. Not that each Bishop in particular hath some particular Apostle whom he doth succeed; I con∣ceive not so: but that the Bishops generally do succeed the Apostles, and are in ge∣neral Vicars unto Christ our Saviour, as to the general Government of the Church of God. Apostolis datos esse Episcopos successores, non siagulis Apostolis, sed in solidum uni∣versis;* 1.531 as the unfortunate Arch-Bish. of Spalato hath right well observed, conform unto the Tenet of the Fathers, in this very point. The sum of these three Sections then, in brief is this. Christ by the mission which he had from his heavenly Father, devolves all power on his Apostles, for teaching, governing and directing his little flock: and they being sensible of their own mortality, ordain by like authority a line of Bishops to succeed them, ad consummationem seculi, by whom that care might be

perpetuated. In whom, as there is plenitudo potestatis, a fulness of authority for that end and purpose;* 1.532 the Bishop, as is said by Ambrose, being made up of all the Orders in the Church (nam in Episcopo omnes ordines sunt, as his words there are:) so he both doth and may assume such and so many associates, assistants, and subservient Mini∣sters in partem oneris, for the discharge of this great trusi; as were assumed by the Apostles, or ordained by them rather, for the publick service of the Church.

Thus have we seen the Gospel of our Lord and Saviour, [unspec XV] dispersed in very little time, over all parts and quarters of the World: of so much of it at the least, whereof the Acts and Monuments have been recorded to posterity: and therewith a transmission also of that form of Government, which was begotten by it, and grew up with it. Nor is there any doubt at all, but that into what coasts soever the Lords Apostles preached the one, they also in the same did plant the other. The late discoveries of those parts and Countreys which were unknown unto our Predecessours, make this clear enough: there being no place nor Region how remote soever, where there was extant any thing of the Christian Faith, in which there were not found as ap∣parent footsteps of the Episcopal form of Government. A pregnant evidence, that as the Lords Apostles were by the Holy Ghost instructed in that Faith, which they were to preach; so by the same eternal Spirit they were directed to that form of Go∣vernment, which they were to plant. They could not else have fallen so unanimously on the self same project: nor had God blessed it with so flourishing and fair increase, a growth so suddain and miraculous; had it not been a graft of his own heavenly planting. Which graft, what root it took in this present Age, in little more than half an hundred years after Christs Ascension; we shall best see by looking on this brief Chronologie, which I have drawn to that intent.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Psal. 78.71, 72. Gen. 14.18.
• * 1.2

  Heb. 7.2. Exod.
• * 1.3

  2 Sam.
• * 1.4

  Psalm 2. Luke 1.33.
• * 1.5

  Heb. 5.6, 10.
• * 1.6

  Heb. 3.2.
• * 1.7

  Ezek. 34.23.
• * 1.8

  Heb. 5.6.
• * 1.9

  Heb. 9.26.
• * 1.10

  Heb. 10.14.
• * 1.11

  Heb. 7.25.
• * 1.12

  Estius in Heb. 3. v. 2.
• * 1.13

  Eph. 4.8, 11, 12, 13.
• * 1.14

  Matth. 28.19.
• * 1.15

  Matth. 3.16.
• * 1.16

  John 1.37.
• * 1.17

  John 1.42, 46.
• * 1.18

  John 1.45.
• * 1.19

  John 3.26.
• * 1.20

  John 6.86.
• * 1.21

  Luke 6.13.
• * 1.22

  Mark 3.14.
• * 1.23

  De Praescript. advers. haeret.
• * 1.24

  Contra Mar∣cian. l. 4.
• * 1.25

  In John 6. Sedulius. Dialog. cum Tryphone. Loco supra ci∣tato.
• * 1.26

  Calvin in Harm. Evang.
• * 1.27

  Matth. 19.28.
• * 1.28

  Hieron. in lo∣cum.
• * 1.29

  Acts 1.21, 22.
• * 1.30

  August. in Psal. 103.
• * 1.31

  Luke 6.13.
• * 1.32

  Quos etiam ipse legare consueve∣rat ad compo∣nendos optimos Sacerdotum mores, ipsas Sy∣nagogas inspi∣ciendas, pravos mores corrigen∣dos, &c. Annal. A. 32. ss. 5. Epiphan. haeres. 30. n. 5. Quos haec ap∣pellatio missos interpretatur. Tert. de pro∣script. In Epist. ad Gal. c. 2.
• * 1.33

  Ignat. Epist. ad Smyrnem.
• * 1.34

  Clemens Alex. ap. Euseb. l. 2. c. 1.
• * 1.35

  Mark 16.
• * 1.36

  Chrys. Tom. 8. p. 110. edit. Savill.
• * 1.37

  Chrys. ibid.
• * 1.38

  John 20.21.
• * 1.39

  Chrys. in Joh. Evang. l. 12.
• * 1.40

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Hom in Joh. c. 20.21. Calv. in Job.
• * 1.41

  Cyprian lib. de unitate Eccles.
• * 1.42

  Barlaam de Papae princi∣patu.
• * 1.43

  Matth. 17.1.
• * 1.44

  Mark 14.33.
• * 1.45

  August. lib. de Agon. Christi∣an. c. 30.
• * 1.46

  Matth. 19.28.
• * 1.47

  Jansen. harm. Evang. in lo∣cum.
• * 1.48

  Luke 10.1.
• * 1.49

  Hist. Eccles. lib. 1. c. 12. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.50

  Ap. Euseb. hist. l. 1. c. 33. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. In Panar. l. 1. haeres. 20. n. 4.
• * 1.51

  Estius in Rom. c. 16.
• * 1.52

  Tertul. contr. Marcion. l. 4.
• * 1.53

  Calv. in har∣mon. Evan.
• * 1.54

  Hieron. in ca∣none Lucae. In Evan. l. 2. cap. 14. Beza in Annot. in Luc. 10.
• * 1.55

  Joseph. Ant. Judaic. l. 12.
• * 1.56

  Calvin. in harm. Evang. ut supra.
• * 1.57

  Leo Ep. 88.
• * 1.58

  Concil. Neoca∣sar. 1. Can. 13.
• * 1.59

  Epist. 5.
• * 1.60

  Theoph. in Luc. 10.
• * 1.61

  Calvin. in In∣stitut. l. 4. c. 3. § 4.
• * 1.62

  Ep. ad Ocea∣num.
• * 1.63

  Acts 1. v. 21.
• * 1.64

  Acts 24.21.
• * 1.65

  Acts 1.6.
• * 1.66

  Matth. 20.25. Luke 22.25.
• * 1.67

  1 Pet. 5.3 2 Cor. 2.24. Chrysost. in o∣per. imper. in Mat. hom. 35.
• * 1.68

  Luke 22.19.
• * 1.69

  Matth. 28.19.
• * 1.70

  John 20.21. John 20.22, 23.
• * 1.71

  John 21.15, 16.
• * 1.72

  Heb. 13.20. 1 Pet. 2.25.
• * 1.73

  De Repab. Eccl. l. 2. c. 3. n. 7.
• * 1.74

  Luke 24.50.
• * 1.75

  Aug. quaest. N. Test. qu. 14.
• * 1.76

  Cyp. lib. 3. Ep. 9.
• * 1.77

  Ambros. in 1. ad Cor. c. 12.
• * 1.78

  In Comment. in Ephes. 4.
• * 1.79

  De Repub. Ec∣cles. l. 2. c. 2. n. 4.
• * 1.80

  Chrys. hom. 14. in Act 6.
• * 1.81

  Acts 1.20.
• * 1.82

  Chrys. hom. 3. in Act. 1.
• * 1.83

  Ambros. in 1. ad Cor. c. 12
• * 1.84

  Id. Serm. 50.
• * 1.85

  Nisi sub populi assistentis con∣scientia. lib. 1. ep. 4.
• * 1.86

  Vide chap. 6. n. 12.
• * 1.87

  Lib. 2. Summae de Eccl. c. 32. ap. Bell. de Rom Pont.
• * 1.88

  Luk. 24.49.
• * 1.89

  Act. 1.9.
• * 1.90

  Psal. 69.26.
• * 1.91

  Act. 1.21.
• * 1.92

  Act. 1.23.
• * 1.93

  Act. 1.15.
• * 1.94

  Chrysost. in hom. 3. in Act.
• * 1.95

  1 Cor. 15. Galat. 1.1.
• * 1.96

  Epiphan. haeres. 20. n. 4.
• * 1.97

  Beza in Act. 2.
• * 1.98

  Tract. 2. in ep. Johannis. Hom. 4. in Act. c. 2.
• * 1.99

  Act. 2.16.
• * 1.100

  Act. 1.14.
• * 1.101

  Act. 2.3, 4.
• * 1.102

  Act. 2.14, 15.
• * 1.103

  Epiphan. haeres. 20. n. 4. Act. 6.3.
• * 1.104

  1 Cor. 12.8, 9, 10.
• * 1.105

  Hom. 32. in 1. ad Cor. c. 12.
• * 1.106

  2 Tim. 4.
• * 1.107

  1 Cor. 14.
• * 1.108

  Luk. 1. Hieron. in Marc. Clemens apud Euseb. l. 2. c. 15. Act. 8.12. v. 14, 15, 17.
• * 1.109

  Hom. 18. in Act. 8.
• * 1.110

  1 Cor. 12.28.
• * 1.111

  Hom. 32. in 1. ad Cor. c. 12.
• * 1.112

  1 Cor. 12.22, 23.
• * 1.113

  Hom. 11. in Ephes. 4.
• * 1.114

  Chap. 6. n.
• * 1.115

  Theoph. Oecum. in Ephes. 4.4.11.
• * 1.116

  Hieron. in Ephes. 4.
• * 1.117

  Act. 2.41.47.
• * 1.118

  Act. 3.2.
• * 1.119

  Act. 4.4.
• * 1.120

  Chrys. hom. 10. in Act. 4. & hom. 25. in Act. 11.
• * 1.121

  Act. 5.14.
• * 1.122

  Gal. 1.19.
• * 1.123

  Eccles. Hist. l. 2. c. 1.
• * 1.124

  In Scrip. Ec∣cles.
• * 1.125

  Ignat. in ep. ad Trall.
• * 1.126

  Gal. 1.18, 19.
• * 1.127

  Hier. in Gal. 1.
• * 1.128

  Gal. 21.1.
• * 1.129

  Act. 15.20.
• * 1.130

  Act. 15.13. Hom. 33. in Act. c. 15. v. 23.
• * 1.131

  Galat. 2.9.
• * 1.132

  Theoph. & Oe∣cum. in Gal. 2.
• * 1.133

  Act. 21.18.
• * 1.134

  Chrysost. hom. 46. in Act.
• * 1.135

  Ignat. ep. ad Trallian.
• * 1.136

  Hieron. in loc. Euseb. l. 4. c. 21. Apud Euseb. hist. l. 2. c. 1. Ibid. & l. 7. c. 14.
• * 1.137

  Catech. 4. cap. de cibis. Catech. 14.
• * 1.138

  Epiph. adv. haeres. 78. n. 7.
• * 1.139

  Ambros. in Gal. 1. De Scriptor. Eccles.
• * 1.140

  Hom. ult. in Ioh.
• * 1.141

  An. 34. n. 291.
• * 1.142

  Cap. 37.
• * 1.143

  Concil. Con∣stant. in Can. 32.
• * 1.144

  Eccl. hist. l. 7. c. 14.
• * 1.145

  Beda Martyrol. Decemb. 28.
• * 1.146

  Hieron. de Script. Eccles.
• * 1.147

  Id. ibid.
• * 1.148

  Euseb. hist. Eccl. l. 3. c. 10.
• * 1.149

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Id. Ibid.
• * 1.150

  Suidas in Epis∣copo.
• * 1.151

  Plutarch. in Numa.
• * 1.152

  LL. Munerum.
• * 1.153

  Cicero ad At∣ticum. l. 7.
• * 1.154

  V. Chap. 5. De civ. Dei. l. 19. c. 19.
• * 1.155

  1 Cor. 12. & Eph. 4.8.
• * 1.156

  Ignat. ep. ad Hieron.
• * 1.157

  Hier. ad Fa∣biolam.
• * 1.158

  De Rep. Eccles. l. 2. c. 2. n. 6. Concil. Neo-Cae∣sar. Can. 13.
• * 1.159

  Beda in Luc. 10.
• * 1.160

  Acts 11. ult. Cap. 18. in Act. Apostol.
• * 1.161

  In Act. 11.
• * 1.162

  v. 18.19, &c.
• * 1.163

  Chrys. in Act. 21.
• * 1.164

  Acts 15.1.
• * 1.165

  Gal. 2.2.
• * 1.166

  Concil. Tarra∣con. Can. 13.
• * 1.167

  Acts 4.32.34, 35.
• * 1.168

  Acts 6.1.
• * 1.169

  Acts 6.3.
• * 1.170

  Acts 21.8.
• * 1.171

  Hom. 14. in Act. 6.
• * 1.172

  Concil. in Trul∣lo, Can. 16.
• * 1.173

  Hieron. in epist. ad Euagr.
• * 1.174

  Epiph. adv. haeres. 20. n. 4. Acts 6.3.
• * 1.175

  Tract. 54. in E∣vang. Johannis.
• * 1.176

  Rom. 16.7.
• * 1.177

  Cap. 8.23.
• * 1.178

  Cap. 1. v. 1.
• * 1.179

  Beza Annot. in 1 Pet. 5.1. Ambros. in 1. ad Tim. c. 3.
• * 1.180

  Phil. 1.1.
• * 1.181

  Rom. 13.4.
• * 1.182

  In Acharn. Act. 1. scen. 4. Histor. l. 1.
• * 1.183

  Hom. in Act. cap. 11.
• * 1.184

  Act. 11.19.
• * 1.185

  Joseph. Antiqu. Jud. l. 12. c. 3.
• * 1.186

  Joseph. de Bello Jud. l. 7. c. 24.
• * 1.187

  Act. 9.31, 32.
• * 1.188

  Homil. 6. in Lu∣cam.
• * 1.189

  Euseb. eccl. hist. l. 3. c. 35.
• * 1.190

  Id. in Chron.
• * 1.191

  Hieron. in. c. 2. ad Galat.
• * 1.192

  Ipse firmavit sedem in qua septem annis quamvis disces∣surus sedit. Greg.
• * 1.193

  Euseb. in Chron.
• * 1.194

  Act. 11.22. Ibid. 25.
• * 1.195

  Ignat. ep. ad Magnes.
• * 1.196

  Homil. de transt. Ignatii. Dialog. 1.
• * 1.197

  Hist. l. 3. c. 16. descript. eccles. in Ignatio. Epist. ad. An∣tioch.
• * 1.198

  Constitat. Apo∣stol. l. 7. c. 48.
• * 1.199

  Baron. Annal. Eccle. An. 45. n. 14.
• * 1.200

  Serm. de Ignat. Tom. 5. p. 499. edit. Savil.
• * 1.201

  1 Pet. 1.1.
• * 1.202

  Februar. 2.
• * 1.203

  Citat ap. Baron. An. 44. n. 10.
• * 1.204

  Conc. Constant. 5. Act. 2.
• * 1.205

  1 Pet. 5.1. Oecumen. in 1 Pet. cap. 5.
• * 1.206

  Nazian. in A∣p••••get.
• * 1.207

  Oecum. in 2. Joh. ep. 1. v. 1.
• * 1.208

  Beza Annot. in 1 Pet. c. 5.
• * 1.209

  1 Pet. 2.25.
• * 1.210

  Phil. 3.17. cap. 9. v. 9.
• * 1.211

  Heb. 13.17.
• * 1.212

  Chrysost. in 13. ad Heb.
• * 1.213

  Theophy. in 13. ad Heb.
• * 1.214

  Oecumen. in locum.
• * 1.215

  E••••eb hist. l. 3. cap. 30. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.216

  Id. l. 14. c. 14. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.217

  Oprian l. 1. ep. 3.
• * 1.218

  Id. lib. 3. ep. 14.
• * 1.219

  Id. lib. 3. ep. 9.
• * 1.220

  De civitat. Dei l. 1. c. 9.
• * 1.221

  Id. l. 20. c. 9.
• * 1.222

  Chap. 9.
• * 1.223

  Paraeus com∣ment. in Heb. 13.
• * 1.224

  Beza Annot. in Heb. 13.17.
• * 1.225

  Ex eo quod lo∣quitur Paulus in plurali mu∣mero. Ibid.
• * 1.226

  Aug. ep. 169.
• * 1.227

  Adv. haeres. l. 3. c. 3. Haeres. 26. Lib. 2. contr. Parmen. Hieron. de Script. Eccles. in Clement. Id. ibid. in Petro.
• * 1.228

  Iren. l. 3. c. 3.
• * 1.229

  Ado. haeres. 27. num. 6. Ep. ad Tral.
• * 1.230

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. E∣piph. haer. 27.
• * 1.231

  Comment. in Act. c. 21.
• * 1.232

  Institut. l 4. c. 6. n. 14.15.
• * 1.233

  Dion. in Tiber. hist. l. 57.
• * 1.234

  1 Pet. 5.13.
• * 1.235

  Euseb. hist. l. 2. c. 15.
• * 1.236

  Hieron. in Proem. super Matt.
• * 1.237

  Euseb. Eccl. Hist. l. 2. c. 23. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.238

  Euseb. Hist. Eccl. l. 3. c. 12. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.239

  Haeres. 66. n. 6. Smectymn. p. 53.
• * 1.240

  Aug. ep. 110.
• * 1.241

  Ep. ad Euag.
• * 1.242

  Smectymn. p. 31.
• * 1.243

  Euseb. hist. l. 6. c. 12.••••.
• * 1.244

  Annal. An. 1248. n. 5.
• * 1.245

  Hier. Comment. in ep. ad Titum.
• * 1.246

  Comment. in Eph. c. 4.
• * 1.247

  Resp. ad tract. de divers. mi∣nist. gradibus c. 23.
• * 1.248

  Smectymn. p. 31.
• * 1.249

  Bellarm. de Scriptor.
• * 1.250

  In Annal. Ec∣cles. A. 60. Rom. Martyr. Mart. 22. April. 3. Jun. 4. Julii. 12. Julii. 12. Julii. 23. Chrys. serm. 128.
• * 1.251

  Rom. Martyr. Apr. 28. Novemb. 7. Sept. 1. Octob. 25. Jan. 27. Acts. Martyrol. Rom. Decem. 29.
• * 1.252

  Epist. contr. Provinc. ad S. Leonem. in fine. lib.
• * 1.253

  Rom. Martyr. Maij 15.
• * 1.254

  Decemb. 8.
• * 1.255

  Ap. Mar. Sco∣tum in An. 72.74.
• * 1.256

  Commem. Petri & Pauli ad diem 29 Junii.
• * 1.257

  Beda hist. Eccl. l. 1. c. 27.
• * 1.258

  Rhemist. Testam. Act. 15.
• * 1.259

  Act. 9.20.22. Gal. 1.17, 18. Act. 9 30. Act. 11.26.
• * 1.260

  Act. 13.1, 2.
• * 1.261

  Chrysostom. hom. 20. in Act.
• * 1.262

  Gal. 1. v. 1. Hom. 27. in. Act
• * 1.263

  2 Cor. 12.11.
• * 1.264

  Act. 13.11. &c.
• * 1.265

  Act. 14.26.
• * 1.266

  Act. 14.23.
• * 1.267

  Annot. in Act. 14. v. 23.
• * 1.268

  Lyra in Act. 14.
• * 1.269

  Gloss. Ordinar. in Act. 14.
• * 1.270

  Oecum. in Act. 14.
• * 1.271

  Act. 19. v. 6.
• * 1.272

  Beza Annot. in Act. 19. v. 1.
• * 1.273

  1 Tim. 4.14. 2 Tim. 1.6.
• * 1.274

  1 Tim. 1.16. & 1 Tim. 4.14.
• * 1.275

  Calvin in 2. ad Tim. 1. v. 6.
• * 1.276

  Estius in 1. ad Tim. c. 4. v. 14.
• * 1.277

  Beza Annot. in Act. 14.23.
• * 1.278

  Calvin in Act. c. 14. v. 23.
• * 1.279

  The perpet. go∣vernm. of Ch. Ch. c. 7. Calvin us supra.
• * 1.280

  Id. ibid.
• * 1.281

  1 Tim. 4.14. 1 Tim. 1.18.
• * 1.282

  Hom. 5. in 1. ad Tim. c. 1.
• * 1.283

  Theodor. & Oecum. in locum.
• * 1.284

  Act. 20.28.
• * 1.285

  Phil. 1.1.
• * 1.286

  Epiphan. adv. haeres. 75. n. 5.
• * 1.287

  Act. 19.21.
• * 1.288

  Hieron. in Tit. c. 1.
• * 1.289

  Id. ad Eva∣grium.
• * 1.290

  Baronius so computes it. Annal. Hieron. in Tit••m. c. 1.
• * 1.291

  Item. l. 3. c. 14.
• * 1.292

  Sigebertus de Eccl. Script.
• * 1.293

  Photius in Biblioth. n. 254.
• * 1.294

  Eccles. hist. l. 3. c. 4.
• * 1.295

  Epiph. har. 75. n. 5.
• * 1.296

  Ambr. Praef. in Epist. 1. ad Timoth.
• * 1.297

  Hieron. de Script. Eccles.
• * 1.298

  Chrysost. Hom. in 1. ad Tim. & in Praef. ad eand.
• * 1.299

  Concil. Chal. Act. 11.
• * 1.300

  De cura Pasto∣rali pars 2. c. 11.
• * 1.301

  Com. in 1. ad Tim. c. 1.
• * 1.302

  Primas. in Tim. 1. Ep. 1. c. 4.
• * 1.303

  Subscript. ep. 2. ad Tim.
• * 1.304

  In Praesat. in 1. ad Tim.
• * 1.305

  In cap. 4. v. 14, 15. Oecum. in 1. ad Tim. c. 1.
• * 1.306

  Beza Annot. in 1. ad Tim. c. 5. v. 19.
• * 1.307

  1 Tim. 1.3.
• * 1.308

  Act. 18, 19. & 19.1, 2, 3. &c.
• * 1.309

  Act. 19.22. Act. 20.3.
• * 1.310

  Act. 20.5.
• * 1.311

  Athan. in Sy∣nop. Sacrae Script. 1 Tim. 3.14.
• * 1.312

  1 Tim. 1.15.
• * 1.313

  2 Tim. 4.21.
• * 1.314

  B. Downham, in the Sermon at Lambeth. p. 76, 77, 78. and others.
• * 1.315

  Tim. 4. Taking it, as it seemeth, in his way to Crete.
• * 1.316

  Annal. Eccl. An. 59. n. 1. Conditorem ex Mileto, quae in Creta est, Sar∣pedonem acci∣pientes, Geogr. l. 2.
• * 1.317

  An. 57. n. 209. Act. 20.2.
• * 1.318

  Eccles. hist. l. 3. c. 4.
• * 1.319

  Ambr. praef. in ep. ad Titum.
• * 1.320

  Hieron. in Tit. c. 1. v. 5.
• * 1.321

  Id. de Scrip. Eccles. in Tit.
• * 1.322

  Apud Oecumen. Praef. ad Tim.
• * 1.323

  Ap. eund. in Praef. ad Tit.
• * 1.324

  Theoph. in praef. ad Tit. Oecum. in Tit. c. 1. v. 5.
• * 1.325

  Annot at. in Ep. ad Tit. in fine.
• * 1.326

  In Synopsi sacr. script. Ad Paulum & Eustochium. Comment. in Ep. ad Tit.
• * 1.327

  Smectym. p. 54.
• * 1.328

  Beda hist. Eccl. l. 1. c. 27.
• * 1.329

  Hist. Eccl. l. 4. c. 20. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.330

  Acts 14.6. Hist. Eccl. l. 4. c. 20. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.331

  Smectymn. p. 50.
• * 1.332

  Ap. Euseb. Eccl. hist. l. 4. c. 22. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. as also, l. 3. c. 4.
• * 1.333

  Ap. Euseb. l. c. 22. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.334

  Acts 28.8.
• * 1.335

  August. 4.
• * 1.336

  Rom. 16.23. Comment. in Epi. ad Rom. c. 16.
• * 1.337

  Phil. 2.29.
• * 1.338

  Theodor. in 1. ad Tim. c. 3.
• * 1.339

  Calvin in 〈◊〉〈◊〉. lip. c. 2.
• * 1.340

  Ver. 7.
• * 1.341

  Julii 19.
• * 1.342

  Colos. 4.17.
• * 1.343

  Ambros. in Co∣los. 4. V. cap. 3. n. 5.
• * 1.344

  Dorotheas in Synopsi.
• * 1.345

  2 Tim. 4.
• * 1.346

  Epiphan. haeres. 51. n. 11.
• * 1.347

  Epiphan. haeres. 51. Theodor. in Epl. 2. ad Tim. Ado in Chron.
• * 1.348

  Decemb. 29. In Chronico.
• * 1.349

  Menolog. Craec. in Martii. 14.
• * 1.350

  De Britannic. Eccl. prim. c. 1.
• * 1.351

  Smectymn. p. 48.
• * 1.352

  Unbishopping of Tim. & Tit. p. 36.
• * 1.353

  Acts 6.12.
• * 1.354

  Acts 11.27, 28. & 21.10.
• * 1.355

  Unbishopping of Tim. & Tit. p. 60, 61, &c.
• * 1.356

  Com. in 4. ad Eph. v. 11.
• * 1.357

  1 Tim. 6.14.
• * 1.358

  Matth. 28. ult.
• * 1.359

  Harmon. Evan∣gel. In Matth. 28.
• * 1.360

  Glossa Ordinar. in 1 Tim. 6.
• * 1.361

  In 1 Tim. 6.
• * 1.362

  Tim. 5.22.
• * 1.363

  Tit. 1. v. 5.
• * 1.364

  Haeres. 75. n. 4.
• * 1.365

  Hom. 11. in 1 Tim. c. 3.
• * 1.366

  Epistola ad Euagr.
• * 1.367

  Smectymn. p. 37.
• * 1.368

  Euseb. hist. Eccl. l. 6. c. 7. n.
• * 1.369

  Id. l. 6. c. 25. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.370

  Concil. Carthag. 3. Ca. 45.
• * 1.371

  Concil. Hispa∣lens. 2. c. 5. Cap. 6.
• * 1.372

  Athanas. in A∣pol. 2. Edit. Gr. Lat. p. 784.
• * 1.373

  Lutet. 1627.
• * 1.374

  P. 732.792.
• * 1.375

  Id. ibid. p. 757.
• * 1.376

  Id. ibid. p. 732.
• * 1.377

  Greg. Presb. in vita Nazian.
• * 1.378

  Conc. Const. 1. cap. 4.
• * 1.379

  Concil. Hisp. 11. cap. 5.
• * 1.380

  Concil. Gan∣grens. Can. 13. Concil. Antioch. l. Can. 10.
• * 1.381

  Cyprian. Ep. 33. or l. 2. ep. 5.
• * 1.382

  Concil. Car. 4. Can. 3.
• * 1.383

  Id. Can. 12.
• * 1.384

  Cited by B. Bilson. c. 13. Sozomen, Hist. Eccl. l. 4. c. 23. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.385

  August. Con. in fine.
• * 1.386

  Valer. Maxim, l. 3. c. 7.
• * 1.387

  1 Tim. 2.1.
• * 1.388

  Calvin in 1. ad Tim. c. 2.
• * 1.389

  Estius in 1 ad Tim. c. 2.
• * 1.390

  Theophyl. & Oc∣cum. in locum.
• * 1.391

  Chrysost. in 1 ad Tim. c. 2.
• * 1.392

  Oecum. Ibid.
• * 1.393

  Mat. 28.19. Luk. 22.19.
• * 1.394

  Ep. ad Smyr∣nens.
• * 1.395

  Tertul. de Bap∣tismo. c. 17.
• * 1.396

  Concil. Laodic. Can. 57. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.397

  Hieron. adv. Luciferian.
• * 1.398

  2 Tim. 4.5.
• * 1.399

  2. Tim. 4.2.
• * 1.400

  2 Tim. 2.15.
• * 1.401

  1 Tim. 5.17.
• * 1.402

  Chrysost. hom. 15. in 1 Tim. 5. Ambros. in lo∣cum. Calvin in 1 ad. Tim. c. 5.
• * 1.403

  Act. 4. v. ult.
• * 1.404

  Zonaras in Concil. Chalce∣d••n. Ca. 26.
• * 1.405

  Cypr. Ep. 34. vel l. 4. ep. 5.
• * 1.406

  1 Tim. 1.3. Tit. 1.10, 11.
• * 1.407

  1 Tim. 1.4.
• * 1.408

  Tit. 1.9.
• * 1.409

  Chrysost. tom. 2. n. Tit. 1.
• * 1.410

  Hieron. in Can. Tit.
• * 1.411

  Theophyl. in 1. ad Tim. c. 1.
• * 1.412

  Oecumen. in lo∣cum.
• * 1.413

  Lyra in 1 Tim. c. 1.
• * 1.414

  Tit. 3.10.
• * 1.415

  Estius in Ep. ad Tit. c. 3.
• * 1.416

  Calvin. in Ti∣tum. c. 3.
• * 1.417

  Hieron. ad Ri∣parium, adv. Vigilant. a.
• * 1.418

  1 Tim. 5.19, 20.
• * 1.419

  Hom. 15. in 1 Tim. in locum.
• * 1.420

  Amb. in 1. ad Tim. c. 5.
• * 1.421

  Hier. in Ep. 1. ad Tim.
• * 1.422

  Epipha. haer. 75. n. 5. Theoph. in 1. ad Tim. c. 5.
• * 1.423

  Lyra in eund. locum.
• * 1.424

  Beza Annot. in 1. ad Tim. 5.
• * 1.425

  1 Tim. 5. Hom. 13. in 1 ad Tim.
• * 1.426

  Oecumen. in 1. ad Tim. c. 5. Beza de triplic•• Episcop.
• * 1.427

  Is••dor. Etymol. l. 7. c. 12.
• * 1.428

  Aug. de Civ. Deil. l. 19. c. 19. Pater. in Psal. 106.
• * 1.429

  Aug. de Cor∣rep. & Grat. c. 16.
• * 1.430

  1 Tim. 3.2.
• * 1.431

  1 Tim. 3.5.
• * 1.432

  In the Preface.
• * 1.433

  1 Tim. 3.2.
• * 1.434

  Hier. in Tit. c. 1.
• * 1.435

  1 Tim. 3.6. Chrysost. & Theophyl. in loc.
• * 1.436

  Calv. in 1. ad Tim. c. 3. v. 8.
• * 1.437

  1 Cor. 3.5.
• * 1.438

  2 Tim. 4.5.
• * 1.439

  Acts 8.14.
• * 1.440

  Acts 12.1, &c.
• * 1.441

  Acts 19.2, 3.
• * 1.442

  Epiphan. haeres. 78. n. 11.
• * 1.443

  Epiph. ibid. n. 2.
• * 1.444

  Acts 2.9. Possidius in Judic. operum August.
• * 1.445

  August. qu. E∣vang. l. 2. chap. 39. Eccl. Histor. l. 3. cap. 1.
• * 1.446

  Ignat. Epist. ad Ephes. p. 22••. Edit. Vedelian.
• * 1.447

  Tertul. lib. 4. contra Marci. cap. 5.
• * 1.448

  Hier. descrip Fcc. in Johan. & prooem. in E∣vang. 8. Matth.
• * 1.449

  Apoc. 1.4.
• * 1.450

  Apoc. 2.1. Cap. 8.12.
• * 1.451

  August. Ep. 162. in fine.
• * 1.452

  Vid. chap. 3. n. 5.
• * 1.453

  Amb. in 1 Cor. cap. 11.
• * 1.454

  Hier. ib.
• * 1.455

  Oecumen. ca. 1. in Apoca.
• * 1.456

  Id. cap. 2. in Apocal.
• * 1.457

  Citat. apud Marlorat. in cap. ••. Apoca. v. 20. Bullin. con. 6. in Apocal. Id. in con. 9.
• * 1.458

  Paraeus in Apo∣cal. cap. 1. v. 20.
• * 1.459

  Beza Annot. Apoc. c. 2.1.
• * 1.460

  Marlorat. Eccl. Exp••sit. in A∣pocal. c. 2. v. 1.
• * 1.461

  Idem. Ibid.
• * 1.462

  Smectymn. p. 52.
• * 1.463

  Apud Phot. in Biblioth. n. 254.
• * 1.464

  Paraeum in A∣pocal. cap. 2.
• * 1.465

  Constitut. Apost. l. 7. c. 48.
• * 1.466

  Igna. in Epist. ad Ephes.
• * 1.467

  Pullenger in A∣pocal. Conc. 9.
• * 1.468

  Ignat. Vpist. ad Polycarp.
• * 1.469

  Irenaeus apud Euse. l. 4. c. 10. & con. haeres. l. 3. c. 3.
• * 1.470

  Apud Euseb. Eccl. hist. l. 4. c. 15.
• * 1.471

  Ap. Euseb. hist. Eccl. l. 5. c. 24.
• * 1.472

  Tertal. lib. de praescript.
• * 1.473

  Euseb. hist. Eccl. l. 3. c. 30.
• * 1.474

  De Scryptor. Eccl. in Poly∣car.
• * 1.475

  Ignat. Epist. ad Smyrnen.
• * 1.476

  Paraeus Com. in Apocal. c. 2.
• * 1.477

  Id. in v. 14.
• * 1.478

  Id. in v. 18.
• * 1.479

  Apr. 13. Euseb. l. 4. c. 14.
• * 1.480

  Apoc. 2.2, 4, 9, 13, 14, 19, 20.
• * 1.481

  Apoc. 2.24. Smectym. p. 53.
• * 1.482

  1 Tim. 2.15.
• * 1.483

  Apoc. 2.24.
• * 1.484

  Def. of the humble Re∣monstr. p. 105. Primasius in Apoc. l. 1. c. 2.
• * 1.485

  Cited in the Def. of the Remonstr. p. 105.
• * 1.486

  In Can. Apoc. Epistola 52. In Can. Apoc. Vindication &c. p. 140. in marg.
• * 1.487

  Paraeus in A∣pocal. c. 3. v. 1.
• * 1.488

  Euseb. hist. Eccl. l. 4. c. 25.
• * 1.489

  Paraeus in A∣pocal. c. 3.
• * 1.490

  Ignat. ad Phi∣ladelphens.
• * 1.491

  Paraeus in A∣pocal. cap. 3.
• * 1.492

  Euseb. hist. Eccl. l. 5. c. 23.
• * 1.493

  Id. l. 4. c. 25.
• * 1.494

  Apocal. 3.16.
• * 1.495

  V. 19, 20, 21.
• * 1.496

  Paraeus in A∣pocal. c. 3. v.
• * 1.497

  Act. Conc. Nic. in subser.
• * 1.498

  Perpet. gover. cap. 13. p. 269.
• * 1.499

  Clemens Alex. ap. Euseb. hist. l. 2. c. 17.
• * 1.500

  Concil. Chal. in subscript.
• * 1.501

  Ignat. Epist. ad Magnesi.
• * 1.502

  Clem. Alex. ap. Euseb. hist. l. 2. c. 17.
• * 1.503

  Unbishopping of Tim. & Tit. p. 126.
• * 1.504

  Beda de sex aetatibus. In Annal. Ecc
• * 1.505

  Iren. l. 3. c. 3.
• * 1.506

  Cypr. Epist. 42. vel. l. 2. ep. 10.
• * 1.507

  Id. Epist. 69. vel. l 4. ep. 10.
• * 1.508

  Firmil. ep. Cy. Epist. 79.
• * 1.509

  Hieron. ad Marcell. adv. Mont.
• * 1.510

  Id. ad Euagr.
• * 1.511

  Id. in Psal. 44.
• * 1.512

  August. in Psal. 44.
• * 1.513

  August. Epist. 42.
• * 1.514

  Grego. Magn. hom. 26.
• * 1.515

  Ignat. Epist. ad Antioch.
• * 1.516

  Tertull. de fu∣ga in persecut.
• * 1.517

  Cypr. de Alea∣tore.
• * 1.518

  Id. Epist. 69.
• * 1.519

  Opta. de schis∣mate. lib. 1.
• * 1.520

  Aug••st. Tra••••. 46. in Job.
• * 1.521

  Id de corr••pt & grat. c. 15.
• * 1.522

  Resp. ad Epis. Petri Motinaei.
• * 1.523

  Tom. 3. part. 2. p. 978.
• * 1.524

  1 Petri 2.2••.
• * 1.525

  Ambros. in 1. ad cor. cap. 11.
• * 1.526

  Opus imperfect. in Matth. hom. 17.
• * 1.527

  Lib. qu. vet. & N. test. qu. 127.
• * 1.528

  Concil. Com.
• * 1.529

  Petr. Blesens. Serm. 47.
• * 1.530

  Conc. Carth. sub. Cypr.
• * 1.531

  De rep. Eccles. l. 2. c. 5. n. 3.
• * 1.532

  Amb. in Ep 4.