A Weapon-Salve for the Churchs Wounds, Religious treatise 1 · Part 2 · Chapter 6 (1 of 3)

A Weapon-Salve for the Churchs Wounds · Religious treatise 1 · Part 2 · Chapter 6 (1 of 3)

p. 230CHAP. VI.

The next thing pleaded for determining the Form of Government, is Apostolical practice; two things inquired into concerning that, What it was? How far it binds? The Apostles invested with the power and authority of Governing the whole Church of Christ by their Commission, Io. 20. 21. Matth. 28. 18. What the Apostles did in order to the Church Government before Pentecost, foreign explained. How the Apostles did divide Provinces; whether Paul and Peter were confined to the circumcision and uncircumcision, and different Churches erected by them in the same Cities? What the Apostles did in order to settling particular Churches? The Names and Office of Bishops, Presbyters, Deacons considered. Four general Considerations laid down about the Apostles practice. First, It cannot be fully known what is was. 2. Great probability, they observe no one certain Form in setling Churches; proved from Epiphanius, Ierome, Ambrose or Hilary. 3. Their Case different from ours in regard of the paucity of Believers. 4. If granted for any Form, yet proves not the thing in question. For, 1. Offices appointed by them are ceased. Widdows, Deaconesses abolished. 2. Rites and Customs Apostolical grown out of use. 1. Such as were founded upon Apostolical Precepts, Acts 15. 29. considered. 2. Such as were grounded on their practice, Holy kiss, Love-feasts, dipping in Baptism, community of goods, with several others.

HAving found nothing, either in our Saviours practice, or in§. 1. the rules laid down by him (conceived to respect Church-Government) which determines any necessity of one particular Form; the onelyonly argument remaining which can be conceived of sufficient strength to found the necessity of any one form of Government, is, the practice of the Apostles, who were by their imployment and commission entrusted with the Government of the Church of God. For our Saviour after his Resurrection taking care for the Planting and Governing of his Church after his Ascension to Glory, doth at two several p. 231times call his Apostles together, and gives now their full Charter and Commission to them; the first▪ containing chiefly the power it self conferred upon them, Iohn 20. 21. The other, the Extent of that power, Matth. 28. 19. In the former our Saviour tells them, As the Father had sent him, so did he send them▪ Which we must not understand of a parity and equality of Power, but in a similitude of the mission: that as Christ before had managed the great affairs of his Church in his own Person; so now (having according to the Prophecies made of him at the end of seventy weeks, made Reconciliation for iniquity by his Death, and brought in everlasting Righteousness by his Resurrection) He dispatcheth abroad his Gospel Heralds to proclaim the Iubilee now begun, and theDan. 9. 24. with Rom. 4. 15▪Dan 9:24Rom 4:15 Act of Indempnity now past upon all penitent Offendors; which is the Sense of the other part of their Commission; Whosoever sins ye remit, they are remitted; and whosoever sins ye retain, they are retained, John 20. 23. i. e. as many as upon the Preaching the Gospel by you, shall come in and yield up themselves to the tenders of Grace proclaimed therein, shall have their former Rebellions pardoned; but such as will still continue obstinate, their former guilt shall still continue to bind them over to deserved punishment. And to the end the Apostles might have some Evidence of the power thus conferred upon them, He breathes the Holy Ghost on them, and Joh. 20. 12John 20:12said, Receive ye the Holy Ghost; which we are not to understand of the Extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost, which were not received till the day of Pentecost, Act. 2. 1. but of the Authoritative power of preaching the Gospel, which was now conferred upon them, by the solemn Rite of breathing the Holy Ghost on the Apostles. In which Sense the Church of England understands that Expression in the Ordination of Ministers, as it implies onelyonly the conferring thereby an authority for the preaching of the Gospel, which being conveyed by Ordination, is fitly expressed by the same word… which our Saviour used in the conferring the same Power upon his Apostles at his sending them forth to be Gospel-Preachers.

After this comes the solemn appointed meeting of Christ with his Disciples at the mountain of Galilee, (where in probability,Mat. 28. 16Matt 28:16 p. 232besides the eleven, were present the five hundered1 Cor. 15. 61 Cor 15:6 Brethren at once.) And here Christ more solemnly inaugurates the Apostles in their Office, declaring all power to be in his hands; and therefore appoints the Apostles to preach the Gospel to every creature, that is, to all men indefinitely, GentilesMark 16. 15.Mark 16:15 as well as Jewes, which Matthew fully expresseth by all Nations. Mat. 18. 19Matt 18:19Now are the Apostles left as chief Governours of the Church under Christ; and in this last Commission wherein the extent of the Apostles power is more fully expressed, there is nothing mentioned of any order for the Government of the Church under them, not what course should be taken by the Church after their decease. All that remains then to be inquired into, is what the Apostles practice was, and how far they acted for the determining any one form of Government as necessary for the Church.

The Apostles being thus invested in their authority, we proceed to consider the Exercise of this authority for the Governing of the Church. And here we are to consider, that the Apostles did not presently upon their last Commission from Christ goe forth abroad in the World to Preach, but were commanded by Christ to go first to Ierusalem, and there to expect the coming of the Holy Ghost according to our Saviours own appointment, Luke 24. 49. And therefore what Mark adds, Mark 16. 20. that after Christs appearance to them, the Apostles▪ went abroad and preached every where, working Miracles, must either be understood of what they did onelyonly in their way returning from Galile oo Ierusalem: or else more probably of what they did indefinitely afterwarps. For presently after we find them met together at Ierusalem, whence they came from Mount Olivet where Christs Ascension was. Here we find them imployed foreign, saith Saint Luke Luk. 24 52 Acts 1. 12. Luk. 14. 53Luke 24:52Acts 1:12Luke 14:53in his Gospel, which we render the Temple; but I understand it rather as referring to the action than the place, and is best explained by what Luke saith in Acts 1. 14. they were foreign, continuing in Prayer and Supplication. And that it cannot be meant of the Temple, appears by the mention of the foreign, an upper room, whereActs 1. 13.Acts 1:13 they continued together. For that it should be meant of any of the foreign, about the Temple, is most improbable to p. 233conceive, because not only those ninty Cells about the Temple were destined and appointed for the Priests in their severalV. L. Empor. in Cod▪ Midd…th. c. 4. Sect. 5. foreign, or times of Ministration; and it is most unlikely the chief Priests and Masters of the Temple should suffer those whom they hated so much, to continue …o near them without any molestation or disturbance. While the Apostles continue here, they proceed to the choice of a new Apostle instead of Iudas, thereby making it appear now necessary that number was to the first forming of Churches, when the vacant place must be supplyed with so great solemnity. Which office of Apostleship (which Iudas once had, and Matthias was now chosen into) is call'd by Peter foreign, Acts 3. 24. which a Learned Interpreter …enders, the portion of his Apostolacy, or the Province which fell to Iudas his lot in the distribution of them among the Apostles, which saith he, isAnnot. in loc. Dissert. 3. c. 4. Schism. c. 4▪ Sect. 13. Answ. to the Cath. c. 4. s. 2. Schism disarm'd. Ans. c. 3. s. 4 call'd foreign, into which Matthias did foreign go, and from which Judas fell by his sin. This Exposition is very often suggested by that learned Author: but (with all due reverence to his name and memory); I cannot see any such evidence either from Scripture or reason, to enforce any such Exposition of either phrase, yielding us sufficient ground to for sake the received sense of both of them. For foreign is plainly nothing else but that office of the Apostleship which belonged to Iudas, without any relation to a Province; and foreign, is that proper place which belonged to Iudas, as he is call'd foreign, the Son of perdition, and no other. But the very foundation of this mistake▪ is, that the several Provinces, into which the Apostles were to go for preaching the Gospel, were distributed among them before they were filled with the Holy Ghost, which is an Hypothesis will not easily be granted by any one that doth but impartially consider these things. That if the Provinces were so distributed among them, it must be either before the death of Christ, or after; and it must be before, if Iudas had a peculiar Province assigned to him, which this Exposition necessarily implyes; but how Provinces could be divided among them before they had their Commission given them to preach to all Nations, is somewhat hard to understand. It must be then immediately after Christ had bid them preach to every creature, that they p. 234thus distributed the Provinces among them; but several things make this very improbable. First, The grosse mistake of the Apostles concerning the very nature of Christs Kingdom▪ which we read, Acts 1. 6▪ when they jointly ask Christ, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore the Kingdom to Israel? They dream… still of a temporal Kingdom, according to the common opinion of the Jews; and, Is it probable they should distribute among themselves the several Provinces for Preaching the Gospel, who thought that Christs Kingdom would have been established by other means then going up and down the World? They looked that Christ himself should do it by his own power, Wilt thou at this time, &c. and did not think it must be done by their means; much lesse by their single going into such vast parts of the World, as the twelve divisions of the World would be. Secondly, It appears very improbable any such division of Provinces should be made then, when they were commanded to stay at Ierùsalem, and not to stir thence till the promise of the Spirit was fulfilled upon them. Tarry ye in the City of Jerusalem till ye be endued with power from on high, Luke 24. 49. And being assembled together with them, be commanded them not to depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, Acts 1. 4. Is it likely, when the Apostles were thus straightly charged not to leave Ierusalem, till they were endued with the power of the Holy Ghost, they should contrive the dispersing themselves abroad all over the World? especially when Christ told them, that it should be after the coming of the Spirit that they should go abroad, Acts 1. 8. and that the Spirit should fit them for their work, (Iohn 15. 26, 27. Iohn 16. 13.) by teaching them, and testifying of Christ. Thirdly, If such a distribution of Provinces had been made so early among the Apostles, how comes it to passe, that after they were endued with the Holy Ghost, they did not every one betake himself to his several Province? there could have been then no plea nor excuse made for their stay any longer at Ierusalem after the promise of the Spirit was fulfilled upon them. And yet after the persecution raised at Ierusalem, when most of the Church were dispersed abroad, we find the Apostles remaining still at Ierusalem, Acts 8. 1, 14. Would they have been so long absent from their charge, if p. 235any such distribution had been made among themselves? Fourthly, The Apostles occasional going to places as they did, argues there was no such set division of Provinces among them. The first departure of any of the Apostles from Ierusalem, was that of Peter and Iohn, who were sent by common order of the Apostles to Samaria, after they heard that by Philips preaching, they had received the Word of God.Acts 8. 14.Acts 8:14 Not the least mention of any peculiar Province of theirs which they were sent to. So Peters going from Ioppa to Casarea, was occasioned by Cornelius his sending for him.Acts 10. 5, 32.Acts 10:5Acts 10:32 Fifthly, That Provinces were not divided, appears, because of so frequent reading of many of the Apostles being together in one place: first the whole twelve at Ierusalem, after that Peter and Iohn together at Samaria; about four years after Pauls conversion, we met with Iames and Peter togetherGal. 1. 18, 19.Gal 1:18Gal 1:19 at Ierusalem; fourteen years after this, we find Iames, Peter▪ and Iohn there. Is it any wayes probable, if allGal. 2. 1, 9.Gal 2:1Gal 2:9 these had their distinct Provinces assigned then, they should be so often found together at Ierusalem, which certainly must belong but to the Province of one of them? Sixthly, It seems evident that they divided not the World into Provinces among them, because it was so long before they thought it to be their duty to preach unto the Gentiles; Peter must have a Vision first before he will go to Cornelius, Acts 10. 11.Acts 10:11and as yet we see they retained that perswasion, that it is unlawful for a Iew to keep company, or come unto one that is of another Nation, Acts 10. 28. Nay more then this, Peter is accused for this very action▪ before the Apostles at Ierusalem, Acts 11. 2, 3. and they laid this a… the ground of their quarrel, that he went in to men uncircumcised, and did eat with them: how this is reconcilable with the whole Worlds being divided into Provinces so early among the Apostles, is not easie to conceive: unlesse some of them thought it unlawful to go to their own Provinces, which certainly must be of the Gentiles, most of them. Seventhly, Another evidence that Provinces were not divided so soon, is, that Peters province so much spoken of, viz. That of the circumcision, fell not to his share, till near twenty years after this time we now speak of, upon the agreement between Paul and Peter at Ierusalem. p. 236If Province had been so soon divided, how comes the ApostleshipGal. 2. 7, 8, 9.Gal 2:7Gal 2:8Gal 2:9 of the Circumcision to be now at last attributed to Peter? Answ. to Cathol. Gentl. chap. 4. s. 3. numb 7.Was it not known what Peters Province was before this time? and if it was▪ how come Paul and he now to agree about dividing their Provinces? Nay further: Eighthly, These Provinces after all this time were not so divided, as to exclude one from anothers Province, which is requisite for a distribution of them, much lesse were they so at first; for as to this division of the Jews and Gentiles between Paul and Peter, it cannot be understood exclusively of others; for, what work then had the rest of the Apostles to do? neither taking them distributively, was Paul excluded from preaching to …he Iews, or Peter to the Gentiles? We see Paul was at first chosen to be a Vessel to bear Christs name before the Gentiles and Acts 9. 15.Acts 9:15Kings, and the children of Israel. We see hereby he was appointedActs 9. 20, 22,Acts 9:20Acts 9:22 an Apostle as well to Jews as Gentiles: and accordingly we find him presently preaching Christ in the Synagogues, and confounding the Iews. So in all places where Paul came, he first preached to the Jew… in the Synayogues, and whenActs 13. 5, 14.Acts 13:5Acts 13:14 they would not hearken to him, then he turned to the Gentiles. Neither was this done only before the Apostles meeting at Ierusalem, supposed to be that spoken of Acts 15▪ but after at Ephesus, we find him entring into the Synagogues there, and preaching to the Jews. So likewise heActs 19. 8.Acts 19:8 did at Corinth, Acts 18. 4. And he reasoned in the Synagogue every Sabbath, and perswaded the Iews and the Greeks. Act. 18. 19Acts 18:19Paul then we see thought not himself excluded from preaching to the Jews, because they were St. Peters Province. Neither did Peter think himself excluded from the Gentiles, heActs 10. 28.Acts 10:28 was the first that opened the door of Faith to them by preaching to them; in which respect it is not altogether improbablyMatth. 16. 19.Matt 16:19 conceived by some, that the power of the Keys was peculiarly given to him. And afterwards in the open Council at Ierusalem, he owns himself as the Apostle to the Gentiles: God made choyce among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear Acts 15. 7.Acts 15:7the word of the Gospel and believe. This then evidently destroys any such early distinction of Provinces; when Peter, whose Province seems most expresse in Scripture, viz. the Circumcision, yet we find him acting as an Apostle to the p. 237Gentiles too. I deny not but at the meeting of Paul and Peter at Ierusalem, when they observed how God did blesse the one most in the circumcision, the other in the uncircumcision, there was an agreement between them, for the one to lay out his pains chiefly upon the Iews, and the other upon the Gentiles; and in probability where they met in any City, the one gathered a Church of the Iews, and the other of the Gentiles; but this makes no such distinction of Provinces, as to exclude the one from the others charge: and further, this agreement between Paul and Peter then after both had preached so many years, makes it fully clear, that the pretended division of Provinces so early among the Apostles, is only the wind-egge of a working Fancy, that wants a shell of Reason to cover it. As for the division of Provinces mentioned in Ecclesiastical Writers, though as to some few they generally agree; as that Thomas went to Parthia, Andrew to Scythia, Iohn to theEuseb. lib. 3. cap. 1. lesser Asia, &c. yet as to the most they are at a losse where to find their Province…, and contradict one another in reference to them; and many of them seem to have their first original from the Fable of Dorotheus, Nicephorus, and such Writers.

Having shewed that the Apostles observed no set-order§. 3. for distributing Provinces, we come to shew what course they took for the setling of Churches in the places they went to. In the clearing of which, nothing is more necessary then to free our judgements of those prejudices and prepossessions, which the practice either of the former ages of the Church, or our own have caused within us. For it is easie to observe, that nothing hath been a more fruitful mother of mistakes and errours, then the looking-upon the practice of the primitive Church through the glass of our own customs. Especially when under the same name, (as it is very often seen) something far different from what was primarily intended by the use of the word, is set forth to us. It were no difficult task to multiply examples in this kind, wherein men meeting with the same names, do apprehend the same things by them, which they now through custome signifie, without taking notice of any alteration in the things themselves signified by those names. Thus since the name Missa was appropriated by p. 238the Papists to that which they call the Sacrifice of the Altar, wherever they meet among ancient Writers with that Name, they presently conceive the same thing was understood by it then. Whereas it was then only taken for the publike Service of the Church, so called from the dismission of the people afterV. Picherellum de Missa, cap. 1. Casaub. Exercit. 16. sect. 58. it, with an Ite, Missa est; and from the different forms of Christians, they had two several Services, the one called Missa Catechumenorum, because at the end of that the Catechumeni were dismissed out of the Assembly; the other Missa fidelium, at which they received the Lords Supper; which afterwards (the former discipline of the Church decaying) ingrossed the name Missa to its self; and when the Sacrifice of the Altar came up among the Papists, it was appropriated to that. For though they innovated things never so much, yet it hath been alwayes the Policy of that Church not to innovate names, that so the incautelous might be better deceived with a pretence of antiquity; and thus under the anciently simple name of Missa, lyes at this day couched a Masse of errours. So after the word foreign was applyed by them to that Sacrifice, wherever they meet that word in Scripture, they interpret it in that sense; and hence when we only read of the Teachers at Antioch, foreign, no other rendring of the words will be taken but Sacrificantibus illis, although it be not onlyActs 13. 2.Acts 13:2 contrary to the sense of the word in the New Testament, but to the Exposition of Chrysostome, Theophylact, and Oecumenius, who expound it by foreign. Thus when publike Liturgies were grown into use in the Church after the decay of the gifts of the first primitive Church, Eusebius his bare calling S. Iames foreign (though he relates only to his Ministry in the Church of Jerusalem) is enough to entitle him Father to a Liturgy, which soon crept forth under his name: by an argument much of the same strength with that which some have brought for reading Homilies, because it is said of St. Paul, Acts 20. 11. foreign. Of the same stamp is Bellarmin…s argument for Invocation of Saints, because of Iacobs saying, Invocetur super eos nomen meum. But we need not go far for examples of this kind. The businesse we are upon, will acquaint …s with some of them. As the argument for popular Election of Pastors, from the Grammatical sense of p. 239the word foreign, for L…y-Elders from the name foreign, and modern Episcopacy from the use of the word foreign in Scriptures. Names and Things must then be accurately distinguished, and the sense of the names must neither be fetched from the custome now used, nor from the Etymologie of the word, but from the undoubted practice of Apostolical times, if that can be made appear what it was. Which will be best done, if we can once find out what course and order the Apostles took in the forming and modelling the Churches by them planted.

That which we lay then as a foundation, whereby to clear§. 4. what Apostolical practice was, is, that the Apostles in the forming Churches did observe the customes of the Jewish Synagogues. Totum regimen Ecclesiarum Christi conformatum V. Bezam, in Acts 13. 15. in Acts 11. 30.—6. 3—14. 12.—20. 28.Acts 13:15Acts 11:30fuit ad Synagogarum exemplar, saith Grotius truly. Praesides & curatores Ecclesiarum ad instar Presbyterorum Synagogae Iudaicae constitutos fuisse constat, as Salmasius often affirms. In which sense we understand that famous speech of the Author of the Commentary on St. Pauls Epistles, which goes under the name of Ambrose, but now judged by most to beApparat. ad lib. de Prim. Papae. p. 151. 220. In 1 Tim. 5. 1. v. etiam in 1 Cor. 12. 28. Aug. lib. 4. ad Boni…. cap. 4.1 Tim 5:11 Cor 12:28 done by Hilary a Deacon of the Church of Rome, under which name St. Augustine quotes some words on the fifth to the Romanes, which are found still in those Commentaries. Nam apud omnes utique gentes honorabilis est senectus, unde & Synagoga & postea Ecclesia Seniores habuit, sine quorum consilio nihil agebatur in Ecclesiâ, which words are not to be understood of a distinct sort of Presbyters from such as were employed in preaching the Word, but of such Presbyters as were the common Council of the Church, for the moderating and ruling the affairs of it; which the Church of Christ had constituted among them, as the Jewish Synagogue had before. And from hence we observe that the Ebionites, who blended Judaism and Christianity together (whence Ierome Ep. ad Augsaith of them, Dum volent & Iudai esse & Christiani, nec Iudaei sunt nec Christiani, they made a Linsey-woolsey Religion,C. Ebion. which was neither Iudaism nor Christianity). These, as Epiphanius tells us, called their publike Meeting-place foreign, and the Pastors of their Churches foreign. Thereby implying the resemblance and Analogy between the form of p. 240Government in both of them. But this will best be made appear by comparing them both together. For which we are to take notice, how much our Saviour in the New Testament did delight to take up the received practices among the Jews only, with such alterations of them as were suitable to the Nature and Doctrine of Christianity, as hath been abundantly manifested by many learned men, about the Rites of the Lords Supper, taken from the post-coenium amongV. Soaliger. de Emend. temp. l. 6. & Lud. Capelli vind. c. Buxtor …ii diss. Selden. Com. in Eutychium. p. 25. the Jews; the use of Baptism, from the Baptism used in initiating Proselytes; Excommunication from their putting out of the Synagogue. As to which things, it may be observed, that those Rites which our Saviour transplanted into the Gospel-soyl, were not such as were originally founded on Moses his Law, but were introduced by a confederate Discipline among themselves. And thus it was in reference to the government of the Synagogues among them; for although the reason of erecting them was grounded on a command in the Levitical Law, Levit. 23. 3. where holy Convocations are required upon the Sabbath-dayes; yet the building of Synagogues in the Land, was not, as far as we can find, till a great while after. For although Moses require the duty of assembling, yet he prescribes no orders for the place of meeting, nor for the manner of spending those dayes in Gods service, nor for the persons who were to super-intend the publike worship performed at that time. These being duties of a moral nature, are left more undetermined by Moses his Law, which is most punctual in the Ceremonial part of Divine Service. And therefore even then when God did determine the positives of Worship, we see how much he left the performance of morals to the wisdom and discretion of Gods people, to order them in a way agreeable to the mind and will of God. We shall not here discourse of the more elder Customs and observations of the Synagogues, but take the draught of them by the best light we can about our Saviours time, when the Apostles copyed out the Government of Christian-Churches by them.

About the time of Christ, we find Synagogues in very great request among the Jews; God so disposing it, that the moral part of his service should be more frequented now the Ceremonial p. 241was expiring; and by those places so erected, it might be more facile and easie for the Apostles to disperse the Gospel by preaching it in those places, to which it was the custome for the people to resort. And as Paul at Athens observing the Altar inscribed foreign, To the unknown God, takes his Text from thence, and begins to preach God and ChristActs 17. 23▪Acts 17:23 to them; so the Apostles in every Synagogue meet with a Copy of the Law, from whence they might better take their rise to discover▪ him who was the end of the Law for Righteousness to all that believe. For Moses of old time hath in every City them that Preach him, being read in the Synagogues every Acts 15. 21Acts 15:21Sabbath day. It was their constant custome then every Sabbath day to have the Law publickly read; for which every Synagogue was furnished with a most exact Copy; which wasV. Buxtorf. Synag Iud. c. 9. p. 216.Judg 9 looked upon as the great Treasure and Glory of their Synagogue; in the Copying out of which, the greatest care and diligence was used. In their Synagogues they read onelyonly the Law and the Prophets, the foreign or Hagiographa were notV. Lud. de Dieu in Acts 13. 15Acts 13:15 ordinarily read in publick; the Law, for the more convenient reading it, was distributed into fifty four Sections, which they called foreign, every week one Section being read (joyning twice two lesser Sections together) the whole Law was read through once every year.

But here I cannot say that the Jews were absolutely bound up to read the several Sections appointed for the dayes, as it is commonly thought (from which Paraschae and the times prefixed of reading them, Cloppenburgh fetched a new InterpretationV. Cloppenb. tract▪ de Sabb. deuteropr… to & Lud. Capelli …p. ad Clopp. p. 74. eum resp. Clopp. p. 143. Luke 4. 17▪Luke 4:17 of the foreign, which is, that the first Sabbath was that of the civil year which began with the Section foreign upon the twenty fourth of the month Tisri; but the second Sabbath after the first, was the first Sabbath of the sacred Year, which began with the Section foreign upon the Calends of Nisan) but I doe not see any such Evidence of so exact and curious a Division of the several Sections, so long since as the time of our Saviour is, which appears by our Saviours reading in the Synagogue at Nazareth where it seems he read after the Synagogue custome, as one of the seven called out by the foreign to read before the people, but we find no Section assigned him by him that delivered the p. 242book to him (the Office of the foreign) but it is said of him foreign, when he had unfolded the book he found out that place in Isaiah. So that then it seems there was no such Precise Observation of the several Sections to be read. And our Saviours reading the book of the Prophets in the Synagogue, puts us in mind of the foreign the Sections of the Prophets answerable to those of the Law; which Elias In Thisbi v. foreignLevita tells us came up after the time of Antiochu… Epiphanes, who so severely prohibited the Jewes the reading of their Law, but from that time hath been observed ever since: ofActs 1. 3. 27.Acts 1:3Acts 1:27 which we read in Pauls Sermon at Antioch in Pisidia speaking of Christ; For they that dwell at Jerusalem and their Rulers, because they knew him not, nor the voyces of the Prophets Itiner. p. 114. ed. L'▪ Emper.which are read every Sabbath day. Benjamin Tudelensis in his Itinerary, tells us, that the same Custome was not observed among all the Jewes for the reading the Sections of the Law. For in Mitsraim (which he there takes not forV. L'Emper. in Not. p. 220. Egypt it self, as it is commonly taken, but for Grand Cairo) where there were near two thousand Jewes, there were two Synagogues, the one of Syrian, the other of Babylonian Iewes. The latter read over every week an entire Section of the Law (as the Jewes in Spain in his time did) and so finished the Law in a years space. The Syrian Jews, or those that were born in Iudea, divided every Section into three parts, and read not the Law through, but in three years time. These Synagogues were very much multiplyed, both in Ierusalem and elsewhere, about the time of our Saviours being in the world. When the common Tradition of the Jewes is, that in Ierusalem V. Serrarium. Rabb. prior. cap. 32.its self, there were foure hundred and eighty one Synagogues, which they ridiculously observe by their Gematry, from the word foreign used Isa. 1. 20. whose numeralMatth. 4. 9.Matt 4:9 Letters being put together, amount to that Number; but … Mark 1. 23Mark 1:23clearer Evidence of the multitude of Synagogues is our Saviours Luke 4. 17.Luke 4:17so often appearing in them; and so likewise the ApostlesJohn 6. 59. 18. 20.John 6:59John 6:18John 6:20 when they went abroad to preach the Gospel, we find in mostActs 13▪ 14▪ 14▪ 1. 17. 10. 18. 4▪ 19. 8.Acts 13:14Acts 13:1Acts 13:17Acts 13:10Acts 13:18Acts 13:4Acts 13:19Acts 13:8 places that they first entred into the Synagogues which were, by the liberty given to the Jews, allowed them in all the Cities where they inhabited by the Roman Governours. And so in all their Dispersions both in Babylon, Egypt, and the p. 243Western parts, we read of the Synagogues which the Jewes enjoyed, and the liberty they had therein for exercise of their own way of Worship and Discipline. And therefore even at Rome we read of their Proseuchae,

Ede ubi consistas▪ in quâ te quaero Proseucha?

Iuvenal. sat. 3.Which by the old Scholiast upon Iuvenal is said to be the place ad quem convenire solebant mendici ad stipem petendam, of which Turnebus gives this account, Proseuchae fana Iudaeorum erant, ut Alexandriae & Romae, alibique; sic nomen adeptae quòd Oracula quaedam essent, vel (ut Christiani loquuntur) Oratoria. Advers. l. 1 cap. 19.Cum autem ad Eleemosynam Iudaei dandam essent propensissimi, eò ceu mendicorum conventus coibat; sed & Iudaei & ipsi mendici, invisi erant omnibus, & mendici ea loca quod domicilia non haberent, diversores interdum occupabant, in iisque cubabant, ideoque Proseuches nomen in contemptum abierat. Scaliger thinks that the Proseucha differed from theNot. in Frag. Graeca p. 25. in Mat. 4, 23. Leg. ad Ca…um.Matt 4:23 Synagogue; for which he is checked by Grotius from that place of Philo, where he speaks of Augustus giving the Jews the liberty of their Proseucha for the learning the Religion of their Countrey, foreign, which in brief is that the Proseuchae were the Schools of all Religion and Learning, by which words he seems to confound not onelyonly the Synagogue and the Proseucha together, but the Synagogue and the foreign too, which was their Divinity-School, whither they used to repair after dinner upon Sabbath dayes, and where the Questions about their Law were discussed; but though I cannot say these were alwayes distinguished, yet in some places they were. Such seems the School of Tyrannus to be, where Paul Acts 19. 9▪Acts 19:9taught, having withdrawn himself from the Synagogue. And so sometimes the Proseuchae were distinguished from the Synagogues, as Grotius himself elsewhere acknowledeth, viz▪ Annot, in Acts 16, 13Acts 16:13either▪ where there was not a competent number of Jewes (for ten Students in the Law were required to make a Synagogue) or else where the Magistrate would not permit the use of them, in which Case the poor Jewes were fain p. 244to content themselves with a place remote from the City, either by some River, as that foreign, mentioned, Acts 16. 13, or by some grove or wood, whence that of Iuvenal,

Nunc sacri fontis nemus, & delubra locantur▪

Iudaeis, quorum cophinus foenumque suppellex.

Which Fountain, as Vossius observs was extra portam Capenam De Idol. l. 2. cap. 80. p. 715. In Fragm▪ G…. p. 25.in luco quem medium irrigabat; and from hence Scaliger gathers, Iudaeos in nemoribus proseuchas collocâsse. Thus it appears now what priviledges the Jews generally enjoyed in their dispersion for their Synagogues and publike places to meet, pray, and discourse in.

We now come to inquire after what manner the government§. 6. of the Synagogue was model'd. Wherein we must first inquire whether there were any peculiar Government belonging to the Synagogue distinct from the civil Consistories which were in use among them. This is often left untouched by learned men in their discourse of Synagogues; some indeedD. Lightfoot Horae Hebr. in Mat. 2. 23. p. 70.Matt 2:23 make the least Consistory or Sanhedrin in use among the Jews, viz. the Triumvirate, to be the Rulers of the Synagogue, and part of the Ten who were to be where ever there was a Synagogue. But although I cannot see sufficient evidence for a great Ecclesiastical Sanhedrin founded by Moses, answering to the great Sanhedrin of LXXI. yet I conceive it probable, that when Synagogues were so multiplied both at home and abroad, there was a distinct Bench of Officers who did particularly belong to the Synagogue to superintend the affairs of that, which I shall now endeavour to make out by these following Reasons. First, because the Ten required for the Synagogue are set down by the Jewish Writers as distinct from the number required for the civil Consistory. For in the Gemara Babylonia (cited by Selden) the account given why thereDe Syned. l. 2. c. 5. s. 4. must be 120. inhabitants where there was to be a Sanhedrin of twenty three, is this; There must be twenty three to màke up the Sanhedrin, and three orders of twenty three, (who sat in a hemicycle under the Sanhedrin in the same Form as they p. 245sat) and besides these the ten who were to be imployed wholly in the affairs of the Synagogue (for the Gloss there explains them to be foreign decem filii hominis vacantes ab omni opere, ut parati sint foreign foreign domui Synagogae manè & vesperi, and there adds, that every City, though it be wall'd, where ten such persons are wanting, is looked on onelyonly as a Village, and thought unworthy to have a Sanhedrin of twenty three;) So that by this it appears the number of the Decemvirate for the Synagogue, was distinct from the persons imployed in the civil Courts. To the same purpose Maimonides gives the1… I…d▪ tit: Sanhed. c. 1. sect. 5. account of the number of 120. who likewise requires the ten for the Synagogue as a distinct and peculiar number. Atque hi erant viri qui vacabant tantum rebus divinis, nimirum lectioni Ad Mis…. tit. Sanhed. c. 1. sect. 6.legit & sessioni in Synagogis, as Mr. Selden quotes it from another place in him. Whereby it is evident that those who were imployed in the Synagogue, did make a peculiar Bench and Consistory, distinct from the civil Judicature of the place▪ And therefore the foreign are not the civil Rulers, but some peculiar Officers belonging to the service of the Synagogue: And thence when all civil Power and government was taken from the Jews, yet they retained their Archisynagogues still. Whence we read of Archisynagogues, Patriarchs and Cod. Theod. l. 16. tit. 8. l. 13. & 14.Presbyters among the Jewes in the time of Arcadius and Honorius, when all civil Power and Jurisdiction was taken from them. The Second Reason is from the peculiar Ordination of those who were the Rulers of the Synagogues. This I know is denyed by many: because, say they, Ordination was proper onelyonly to the Presbyters among the Jewes, who were thereby made capable of being members of the Sanhedrin, thence it was called foreign Ordinatio Presbyterorum, i. e. Impositio manuum quâ Presbyteri fiunt. This Ordination was I grant primarily used in order to the making men Members of the great Sanhedrin, and therefore the Jewes derive the custome of ordaining them, from Moses his first constituting the LXX Elders, which say they, was done by imposition ofNumb. 13. Numb. 37. 18.Num 13 hands: which was seconded by the example of Moses laying his hands on Ioshua, from whence the custome was continued down among them till the time of Adrian, who severely p. 246prohibited it by an Edict, that whosoever should ordain anotherGem. Babyl. ad tit. Sanhed. c. 1. s. 13. 14. Scaliger Elench. Triher. c. 10. Tzemach. David. p. 1. m l. 4. A… ▪ 880. should forfeit his life, and so every one that was so ordained. Thence the Jewes tell us that R. Iehuda Ben Baba is called foreign the Ordainer, because in the time of that Edict he ordained five Presbyters, without which they had wholly lost their succession of Presbyters for Courts of Judicature. But though it be thus evident that their Ordination was chiefly used in Order to the fitting men to be members of the Sanhedrin, yet that besides this there was a peculiar Ordination for persons not imployed in civil matters, will appear; First, from the different Forms of their Ordination; some were general without any restriction or limitation at all: which power was conferred in words to this purpose; Ordinatus jam sis, & sit tibi facultas judicandi etiam causas poenales. He that was thus ordained, was …it for any Court of Judicature; but thereSelden. id Eutych. p. 19. de Syned. l. 2. c. 7. s. 2. was another Form of Ordination which was more particular and restrained; a Form limiting the general power, either to pecuniary Cases, or criminal, or onelyonly to the power of binding and loosing, without any judiciary power at all. Now those that were thus Ordained, were the Jewish Casuists, resolving men onelyonly in for… conscientiae of the lawfulness and unlawfulness of things propounded to them. This they called foreign Facultas decernendi circa ligatum & solutum; that is, a power of Decreeing what was lawful or unlawfull. For in that sense binding and loosing is used by the Jewish Writers. In which sense they tell us commonly that one School, as that of Hille… foreign binds, that is, judgethV. Light. foot Horae Hebr. in Matth. 16. 19.Matt 16:19 a thing unlawful; another foreign looseth (as that of Schammai) that is, judgeth it lawful and free to be done. Now the persons thus ordained with this power onelyonly, were thereby no Members of any civil Court of Judicature, nor thereby made capable of it: it appears then that this Ordination was peculiar to a particular function, which exactly answers to the Ministerial Office under the Gospel. And that those who were thus ordained, either might not, or did not exercise that Office of theirs in the Synagogue, I can see no reason; I am sure it was most suitable to that place, or at least to the foreign where there was such a one distinct from the Synagogue.

p. 247But a clearer evidence of the particular ordination of those imployed in the Synagogue, we have from Benjamin in his Itinerary; for granting his palpable mistakes about the civil power of the Jewes in his time (which was about the middle of the twelfth Century) sufficiently discovered by the Learned L'Empereur, yet as to the ordaining of persons for the severallDissertat. ad Lectorem & in not. 193. &c. Synagogues, we have no ground to suspect his Testimony, which is very plain and evident. For speaking of R. Daniel Ben Hasdai, who was the foreign or the foreign, the Head of the Captivity then residing at Bagdad: He tells us, the Synagogues of Babylon, Persia, Choresan, Sheba, Mesopotamia and many other places, derived power fromP. 73. ed. L'Emper. Heb. Lat. him foreign of ordaining a Rabbi and Preacher over every Synagogue, which he tells us was done by laying on his hands upon them. These two, the Rabbi and the foreign he makes to be the fixed Officers of every Synagogue, and the Office of the latter lay chiefly in expounding the Scriptures. The like he hath of R. Nathaniel the foreign in Egypt, to whose Office it belonged to ordain in all theP. 115. Synagogues in Egypt, foreign th…bbies and Lecturers of the Synagogue: by which we see …arly▪ that there was a peculiar Ordination for the Ministers belonging to the Synagogue. Thence Scaliger wonders how Christ at twelveElench. Triherc. 10▪ years old should be permitted to sit among the Doctours asking Questions when he was no ordained Rabbi, to whom that place belonged. But although foreign Luke 2. 46Luke 2:46may possibly mean no more then sitting on one of the lower seats belonging to those who were yet in their foreign or Minority, where they sat at the feet of their Teachers, which was not within the Temple its self; but, as Arias Montanus In Appar. de Templo.thinks, was at the East-gate of the Temple where the Doctors sat; yet this is evident by Scaliger, that he looked on an Ordination for that end, as necessary to those who sat in the Synagogues, as the Doctors there: which is likewise affirmed by Grotius, who tell us, that among the Jews, not onelyonly all publick civil Offices were confer'd by imposition of hands, Sed & in Archisynagogis & senioribus Synagogae, idem observatum; Annot. in Evang. p. 32.unde mos foreign ad Christianos transiit: But likewise all the Rulers and Elders of the Synagogue were so ordained, from p. 248whence the custome was translated into Christianity (of which afterwards.) Thus now we have cleared that there was a peculiar Government belonging to the Synagogue, distinct from the civil Judicatures.

Having thus far proceeded in clearing that there was a peculiar§. 7. Form of Government in the Synagogue; we now inquire what that was, and by what Law and Rule it was observed. The Government of the Synagogue, either relates to the Publick Service of God in it, or the publick Rule of it as a society. As for the Service of God to be performed in it, as there were many parts of it, so there were many Officers peculiarly appointed for it. The main part of publick service lay in the Reading and Expounding the Scriptures: For both, the known place of Philo will give us light for understanding them. foreign.Lib. omnem probum liberum esse. Coming to their Holy places called Synagogues, they sit down in convenient order ac…ding to their several Forms, ready to hear, the young under …der; then one taketh the Book and readeth, another of those best skilled comes after, and expounds it. For so Grotius reads it foreign for foreign, out of Eusebius. In Luc. 4. 16:Luke 4:16We see two several Offices here, the one of the Reader in the Synagogue, the other of him that did interpret what was read. Great difference I find among Learned men about the foreign of the Synagogue: some by him understand the foreign, called sometimes in Scripture foreign, and so make him the under. Reader in the Synagogue; and hence I suppose it isLuke 4. 20.Luke 4:20 (and not from looking to the poor, which was the Office of the Parnasim) that the Office of Deacons in the Primitive Church is supposed to be answerable to the foreign among the Jewes; for the Deacons Office in the Church, was the publick Reading of the Scriptures: And hence Epiphanius parallels the foreign, and foreign amongC. Ebeonites the Jewes, to the Bishop, Presbyters, and Deacons among the Christians. But others make the Office of the foreign to be of a higher nature not to be taken for the Reader himself, (for that was no office; but upon every Sabbath day seven were p. 249call'd out to do that work, as Buxtorf tells us; first a Priest,Synag. Iud. lib. 1…. then a Levite, and after, any five of the people; and these had every one their set-parts in every Section to read, which are still marked by the numbers in some Bibles.) But the foreign was he that did call out every one of these in their order to read, and did observe their reading, whether they did it exactlyLex Rabb. ad verb. or no. So Buxtorf speaking of the foreign, Hic maximè oratione sive precibus & cantu Ecclesi… praeibat, praeerat lectioni legali, docens quod & quomodo legendum, & similibus quae ad sacra pertinebant. So that according to him the foreign was the Superintendent of all the publick service, thence others make him parallel to him they call'd foreign the Angel of the Church, Legatus Ecclesiae. L'Empereur renders it, as thoughIn Benjam, not p. 149. the name were imposed on him as acting in the name of the Church, which could only be in offering up publick prayers; but he was Angelus Dei, as he was inspector Ecclesiae, because the Angels are supposed to be more immediately present in, and Supervisors over the publick place, and duties of worship; see 1 Cor. 11. 10. this foreign is by L'Empereur often rendred Concionator Synagogae, as though it belonged to him to expound the meaning of what was read in the Synagogue, but he that did that was call'd foreign from foreign to enquire; thence foreign, the enquirer, or disputer of this world, i Cor 1. 20…1 Cor 1:20thence R. Moses Haddarsan; but it is in vain to seek for several Offices from several Names; nay, it seems not evident, that there was any set-Officers in the Jewish Church for expounding Scriptures in all Synagogues, or at least not so fixed, but that any one that enjoyed any repute for Religion or knowledge in the Law, was allowed a free liberty of speaking for the instruction of the people; as we see in Christ and his Apostles; for the Rulers of the Synagogue sent to Paul and Act. 13. 15.Acts 13:15Barnabas after the reading of the Law, that if they had any word of exhortation, they should speak on. From hence it is evident, there were more then one who had rule over the Synagogues, they being call'd Rulers here. It seems very probable, that in every City where there were ten wise men, (as there were supposed to be in every place, where there was a Synagogue) that they did all jointly concurr for the ruling the affairs of the Synagogue. But what the distinct Offices p. 250of all these were, it is hard to make out, but all joyning together seem to make the Consistory, or Bench as some call it, which did unanimously moderate the affairs of the Synagogue, whose manner of sitting in the Synagogues, is thus described by Mr. Thorndike out of Maimonides, whose wordsService of God at Rel. Ass c. 3. p, 56. are these: How sit the people in the Synagogue? The Elders sit with their faces towards the people, and their backs towards the He…all (the place where they lay the Copy of the Law) and all the people sit rank before rank, the face of every rank towards the back of the rank before it, so the faces of all the people are towards the Sanctuary, and towards the Elders, and towards the Ark; and when the Minister of the Synagogue standeth up to prayer, he standeth on the ground before the Ark with his face to the Sanctuary, as the rest of the people. Several things are observable to our purpose in this Testimony of Maimonides: First, That there were so many Elders in the Synagogue, as to make a Bench or Consistory, and therefore had a place by themselves, as the Governours of the Synagogue. And the truth is, after their dispersion we shall find little Government among them, but what was in their Synagogues, unlesse it was where they had liberty for erecting Schools of Learning. Besides this Colledge of Presbyters, we here see the publick Minister of the Synagogue, the foreign i. e. Episcopus congregationis, the Superintendent over the Congregation, whose peculiar office it was to pray for, and to blesse the people. We are here further to take notice of the form of their sitting in the Synagogues; The Presbyters sat together upon a Bench by themselves, with their faces towards the people, which was in an Hemicycle, the form wherein all the Courts of Judicature among them sat; which is fully described by Mr. Selden, andDe Syned. l. 2. c. 6. s. 2. Thorndike Rel. Assem. cap. 3. Mr. Thorndike in the places above-cited. This was afterwards the form wherein the Bishops and Presbyters used to sit in the primitive Church, as the last named learned Author largely observes and proves. Besides this Colledge of Presbyters, there seems to be one particularly call'd the Ruler of the Synagogue, Mark 5. 35 Luke 8. 49 13. 14.Mark 5:35Luke 8:49foreign, in the Scriptures foreign, or foreign, which in the importance of the New Testament Greek (following that of the Alexandrian Iews in the version of the Old Testament) implyes no more then a primacy of p. 251order in him above the rest he was joyned with. And thence sometimes we read of them in the Plural number, foreign, Acts 13. 15. implying thereby an equality of powerMark 2. 25Mark 2:25 in many; but by reason of the necessary primacy of one in order above the rest, the name may be appropriated to the President of the Colledge. Acts 18. 8, 17. we read of two, viz. Crispus and Sosthenes, and either of them is call'd foreign, which could not be, did the name import any peculiar power of Jurisdiction lodged in one exclusive of the rest, unlesse we make them to be of two Synagogues, which we have no evidence at all for; I confesse, Beza hisAnnot. in Luc. 13. 14Luke 13:14 argument from foreign, Mark 5. 22. for a multitude of those so call'd in the same Synagogue, is of no great force, where we may probably suppose there were many Synagogues. But where there is no evidence of more then one in a place, and we find the name attributed to more then one, we have ground to think that there is nothing of power or Jurisdiction in that one, which is not common to more besides himself. But granting some peculiarity of honour belonging to one above the rest in a Synagogue, which in some places, I see no great reason to to deny, yet that implyes not any power over and above the Bench of which he was a Member, though the first in order; Much as the foreign the Prince of the Sanhedrin, whose place imported no power peculiar to himself, but only a Priority of dignity in himself above his fellow Senators: as the Princeps Senatûs in the Roman Republick answering to the foreign in the great Sanhedrin, who was next to the Nasi, as the Princeps Senatûs to the Consuls, which was only a Honorary Dignity and nothing else: Under which disguise that Politick Prince Augustus ravished the Roman Commonwealth of its former liberty. The name foreign, may I suppose in propriety of speech be rendred in Latin Magister ordinis, he being by his Office Praesul, a name not originally importing any power, but only dignity; Those whom the Greeks callIn Caligulâ. Lampr. vit. Alex. Sever. Vopiscus in Saturn. foreign, the Latins render Magistros sui ordinis, and so Suetonius interprets foreign by Magisterium sacerdotii. They who meet then with the name Archisynagogues, either in Lampridius, Vopiscus, Codex Theodosii, Iustinians Novels, in p. 252all whom it occurs, and in some places as distinct from Presbyters,Cod de Iud▪ Colic. & Eam. l. 13. Cod. Iud▪ l. 17. c. de Iudaeis. will learn to understand thereby only the highest honour in the Synagogue; considering how little, yea nothing of power the Jews enjoyed under either the Heathen, or Christian Emperours.

One thing more we add, touching this honour of the Rulers of the Synagogue among the Jews, that whatever honour, title, power or dignity is imported by that name, it came not from any Law enforcing or commanding it, but from mutual con…oederation and agreement among the persons imployed in the Synagogue, whose natural reason did dictate, that where many have an equality of power, it is most convenient (by way of accumulation upon that person, of a power more then he had, but not by deprivation of themselves of that inherent power which they enjoyed) to entrust the management of the executive part of affairs of common concernment to one person specially chosen and deputed thereunto. So it was in all the Sanhedrins among the Jews, and in all well-ordered Senates and Councils in the World. And it would be very strange, that any Officers of a religious Society, should upon that account be out-Lawed of those natural Liberties, which are the results and products of the free actings of Reason. Which things, as I have already observed, God hath looked on to be so natural to man, as when he was most strict and punctual in ceremonial Commands, he yet left these things wholly at liberty. For we read not of any command, that in the Sanhedrin one should have some peculiarity of honour above the rest; this mens natural reason would prompt them to, by reason of a necessary priority of Order in some above others; which the very instinct of Nature hath taught irrational creatures, much more should the Light of Reason direct men to. But yet all order is not power, nor all power juridical, nor all juridical power a sole power; therefore it is a meer Paralogism in any from Order to inferr power, or from a delegated power by consent, to inferr a juridical power by Divine Right; or lastly, from a power in common with others, to deduce a power excluding others. All which they are guilty of, who meerly from the name of an Archisynagogue, would fetch a perpetual necessity of jurisdiction p. 253in one above the Elders joyned with him, or from the foreign in the Sanhedrin, a power of a sole Ordination in one without the consent of his fellow Senators. But of these afterwards. Thus much may suffice for a draught in little of the Government of the Jewish Synagogue.

Having thus far represented the Jewish Synagogue, that§. 8. the Idea of its government may be formed in our understandings, we now come to consider how far, and in what the Apostles in forming Christian▪ Churches did follow the pattern of the Jewish Synagogue. Which is a notion not yet so far improved as I conceive it may be, and I know no one more conducible to the happy end of composing our differences, touching the government of the Church then this is. I shall therefore for the full clearing of it, premise some general considerations to make way for the entertainment of this hypothesis in mens minds, at least as probable; and then endeavour particularly to shew how the Apostles did observe the model of the Synagogue; in its publike service, in ordination of Church Officers, in forming Presbyteries in the several Churches, in ruling and governing those Presbyteries▪ The general consideration I premise, to shew the probability of what I am asserting, shall be from these things: from the community of name and customs between the believing Iews and others, at the first forming of Churches: from the Apostles forming Churches out of Synagogues in their travelling abroad; from the agreeablenesse of that model of Government to the State of the Christian Churches at that time. I begin with the first, From the community of names and customs between the believing and unbelieving Iews at the first forming Churches. All the while our blessed Saviour was living in the World, Christ and his Disciples went still under the name of Jews; they neither renounced the name, nor the customs in use among them. Our Saviour goes up to the Feasts at Ierusalem, conforms to all the Rites and Customs in use then; not only those commanded by God himself, but those taken up by the Jews themselves, if not contrary to Gods commands, as in observing the feast of Dedication, in going into their Synagogues, and teaching so often there, in washing the Feet of the Disciples, p. 254(a custome used by them before the Passeover) in using baptism, for the proselyting men to the profession of Christianity, &c. In these and other things our Saviour conformed to the received practice among them, though the things themselves were no wayes commanded by the Law of Moses. And after his Resurrection, when he took care for the forming of a Church upon the doctrine he had delivered, yet we find not the Apostles withdrawing from communion with the Jews, but on the contrary, we find the Disciples frequenting the Temple, Act. 2. 46. Act. 3. 1. Act. 5. 20, 21, 26. Whereby it appears how they owned themselves as Jews still, observing the same both time and place for publike Worship which were in use among the Jews. We find Paul presently after his conversion in the Synagogues, preachingActs 9. 20.Acts 9:20 that Christ whom he had before persecuted; and where ever he goes abroad afterwards, we find him still entering into the Synagogues to preach; where we cannot conceive he should have so free and easie admission, unlesse the Jews did look upon him as one of their own Religion, and observing the same customs in the Synagogues with themselves, onlyActs 13. 5, 14. 17. 10. 18. 4. 19. 8.Acts 13:5Acts 13:14Acts 13:17Acts 13:10Acts 13:18Acts 13:4Acts 13:19Acts 13:8 differing in the point of the coming of the Messias, and the obligation of the ceremonial Law, the least footsteps of which were seen in the Synagogue-worship. But that which yet further clears this, is the general prejudice of the Disciples against the Gentiles, even after the giving of the Holy Ghost, as appears by their contending with Peter for going in to menActs 11. 3.Acts 11:3 uncircumcised. It is evident, that then the Apostles themselves did not clearly apprehend the extent of their Commission; for else what made Peter so shy of going to Corn…lius? but by every creature, and all nations, they only apprehended the Jews in their dispersions abroad, or at least, that all others who were to beAct. 10. 28.Acts 10:28 saved, must be by being proselyted to the Jews, and observing the Law of Moses, together with the Gospel of Christ. And therefore we see the necessity of circumcision much pressed by the believing Jews which came down from Ierusalem, which raised so high a Dispute, that a Convention of the ApostlesActs 15. 1.Acts 15:1 together at Ierusalem was called for the ending of it; And even there we find great heats before the businesse could be decided, foreign, After there had been much p. 25515. 7.disputing. Nay after this Council, and the determination of the Apostles therein, all the ease and release that was granted, was only to the Gentile-converts; but the Jews stick close to their old Principles still, and are as zealous of the customes of the Jews as ever before. For which we have a pregnant testimony in Act. 21. 20, 21, 22. Where the Elders of the Church of Ierusalem tell Paul there were many myriads foreign of believing Iews, who were foreign, all very zealous for the Law still, and therefore had conceived a sinister opinion of Paul, as one that taught a defection from the Law of Moses, saying, they might not circumcise their Children, nor walk after the customs. One copy reads it as Beza tells us, foreign, to follow the custome of their Fathers. We see how equally zealous they are for the customes obtaining among them, as for the Law its self. And is it then any wayes probable that these who continued such Zealots for the customs among them, should not observe those customs in use in the Synagogues for the Government of the Church? Might not they have been charged as well as Paul with relinquishing the customs, if they had thrown off the model of the Jewish Synagogue, and take up some customes different from that? And that which further confirms this, is, that this Church of Ierusalem continued still in its zeal for the Law, till after the destruction of the Temple; and all theEuseb. hist. l. 4. c. 6. & Chronic. Hist. sacr. l. 2. p 381. ed. Horn. several Pastors of that Church (whom Ecclesiastical Writers call Bishops) were of the circumcision. For both we have the testimony of Sulpitius Severus, speaking of the time of Adrian. Et quia Christiani ex Iudaeis potissimum putabantur (namque tum Hierosolymae, non nisi ex circumcisione habebat Ecclesia sacerdotem) militum cohortem custodias in perpetuum agitare jussit, quae Iudaeos omnes Hierosolymae aditu arceret. Quod quidem Christiana fidei proficiebat; quia tum pene omnes Christum Deum, sub legis observatione, credebant. We see hereby that the Christians observed still the Law with the Gospel; and that the Jews and Christians were both reckoned as one body, which must imply an observation of the same Rites and Customes among them: For those are the things whereby Societies are distinguished most. Now it is evident, that the Romans made no distinction at first between p. 256the Jews and Christians. Thence we read in the time of Claudius, when the Edict came out against the Jews, Aquila andActs 18. 2,Acts 18:2 Priscilla, though converted to Christianity, were forced to leave Italy upon that account, being still looked on as Jews; yet these are called by Paul, his helpers in Christ Iesus. ForRom. 16. 3.Rom 16:3 which Onuphrius gives this reason, Nullum adhuc inter Iudaeos & Christianos discrimen noscebatur, which account is likewiseAnnot. in vit. Petri. ap. Platin. in vit. Petri. given by Alphonsus Ciaconius; Congeneres & comprofessores ejusdem religionis gentilibus censebantur (Christiani pariter ac Iudaei). The Edict of Claudius we may read still in Suetonius, Iudaeos impulsore Christo assiduè tumultuantes Roma expulit. In Claud. cap. 25.We find here the Edict fully expressed for banishing the Jews, and the occasion set down; which most interpret of the Doctrine of Christ, as the occasion of the stirs between the Jews and Christians. For the Romans called Christ Chrestus, Lactant. l. 4. c. 7. Tertul. Apolog. cap. 3. V. Pet. Pithaeum Hor. subseciv. l. 2. c. 3. Donatus Dilucid. in Sueton. in Claud. c. 25.and Christians, Chrestiani, as the authors of the Christians Apologies against the Heathens often tell us. But Marcellus Donatus conjectures this Christus to have been some seditious Jew called by that name; for which he brings many Inscriptions wherein the name occurrs, but none wherein it is given to a Jew; which should be first produced, before we leave the received interpretation of it. However that be, we see the Jews and Christians equally undergo the punishment without any difference observed in them; and therefore when Paul was brought before Gallio the Proconsul of Achaia, he looked upon the difference between the Jews and Paul to be only a Question of words and names, and of their Law, and thereuponAct. 18. 15. Apud. Orig. lib. 3. cont. Cels.Acts 18:15 refused to meddle with it. And so Celsus upbraids both Jews and Christians, as though their contentions were about a matter of nothing. By all this we may now consider, how little the Christians did vary from the customs and practice of the Jews, when they were thought by those who were equally enemies to both, to be of the same body and community. Which consideration will make the thing I aim at, seem more probable, when withall we observe that the Jewish customs in their Synagogues, were those whereby they were most known among the Romans; and therefore when they looked on the Christians as of the same Religion with the Jews, it is evident they observed no difference as to their publick practises p. 257in their religious Societies. Which is the first consideration, to shew how probable it is that Christians observed the same form in Government with what they found in the Synagogues.

To which I add a second Consideration; which is the§. 9. Apostles forming Christian Churches out of Jewish Synagogues. We have already shewed how much their resort was to them in their preaching from the constant practice of Paul, although he was in a more peculiar manner the Apostle of the uncircumcision; much more then is it probable that the others, especially Peter, Iames, and Iohn did resort to the Circumcision. And in the setling things at first, we see how fearful the Apostles were of giving offence to the Jews, how ready to condescend to them in any thing they lawfully might. And can we think that Paul would yield so far to the Jews as to circumcise Timothy, rather then give offence to the Jews inActs 16 3.Acts 16:3 those parts where he was, (and that in a thing which seemed most immediately to thwart the design of the Gospel, as circumcisionGal. 5. 2.Gal 5:2 did, witness the Apostle himself;) that yet he would scruple the retaining the old model of the Synagogue, when there was nothing in it at all repugnant to the Doctrine of the Gospel, or the nature and constitution of Christian Churches? When the Apostles then, did not only gather Churches out of Synagogues, but at some places in probability whole Synagogues were converted as well as whole Churches formed, What shew of reason can be given why the Apostles should flight the constitution of the Jewish Synagogues, which had no dependance on the Jewish Hierarchy, and subsisted not by any command of the ceremonial Law? The work of the Synagogue not belonging to the Priest as such, but as persons qualified for instructing others, and the first model of the Synagogue government is with a great deal of probability derived from the Schools of the Prophets and the Government thereof. This consideration would be further improved, if the notion of distinct coetus of the Jewish and Gentile Christians in the same places could be made out by any irrefragable Testimony of Antiquity, or clear evidence of reason drawn from Scripture: Because the same reason which would ground the distinction of the Jewish Church from the Gentile, would likewise hold for the Jewish p. 258Church to retain her old form of Government in the Synagogue way. For it must be some kind of peculiarity supposed by the Jews in themselves as distinct from the Gentiles, which did make them form a distinct Congregation from them; which peculiarity did imply the observing those customes among them still, by which that peculiarity was known to others; among which those of the Synagogue were not the least known or taken notice of. But I must freely confesse, I find not any thing brought by that learned Person, who hath managed this Hypothesis with the greatest dexterity, to haveDr. Ham. of Schism ch. 4. sect. 6, 7, &c. that evidence in it which will command assent from an unprejudicated mind. And it is pitty that such infirm Hypotheses should be made use of for the justifying our separation from Rome, which was built upon reasons of greater strength and evidence, then those which have been of late pleaded by some assertors of the Protestant Cause, though men of excellent abilities and learning. For there are many reasons convictive enough, that Peter had no universal power over the Church, supposing that there was no such thing as a distinction between the Jewish and Gentile Coetus. I deny not but at first, before the Jews were fully satisfied of the Gentiles right to Gospel priviledges, they were very shy of communicating with them, especially the believing Jews of the Church of Ierusalem,: Upon the occasion of some of whom coming down to Antioch from Iames, it was, that Peter withdrew and separated himself from the Gentiles, with whom beforeGal. 2. 12.Gal 2:12 he familiarly conversed. Which action of his is so far from being an argument of the setling any distinct ChurchSchism sect. 8. of the Jews from the Gentiles there, that it yields many reasons against it. For first, Peters withdrawing was only occasional, and not out of design; whereas, had it been part of his commission to do it, we cannot conceive Peter so mindlesse of his Office, as to let it alone till some Jews came down from Ierusalem to tell him of it. Secondly, It was not for the sake of the Jews at Antioch that he withdrew, but for the Jews which came down from Ierusalem; whereas, had he intended a distinct Church of the Jews, he would before have setled and fixed them as members of another body; but now it evidently appears, that not only Peter himself, p. 259but the Jews with him, did before those Jews coming to Antioch associate with the Gentiles, which is evident by v. 13. And other Iews dissembled likewise with him, in so much that Barnabas also was carryed away with their dissimulation. Whereby it is clear, that these Jews did before joyn with the Gentile-Christians, or else they could not be said to be led away with the dissimulation of Peter. Thirdly, St. Paul is so far from looking upon this withdrawing of Peter, and the Iews from the Gentiles society to be a part of St. Peters Office, that he openly and sharply reproves him for it. What then, was Paul so ignorant, that there must be two distinct Churches of Iews and Gentiles there, that he calls this action of his dissimulation? In all reason then, supposing this Notion to be true, the blame lights on Paul, and not on Peter: as not understanding, that the Jews were to be formed into distinct bodies from the Gentile-Christians. And therefore it is observable that the same Author who is produced, as asserting,Answ. to S…his. Dis. ch 2. s. 5. Hieronym. in Gal. 1. 22.Gal 1:22 that seorsim quae ex Iudais erant Ecclesiae habebantur, nec his quae …rant ex Gentibus miscebantur, is he, who makes this reproo… of Peter by Paul, to be a meer matter of dissimulation between them both; which sense of that action whoever will be so favourable to it as to embrace it, (as some seem inclinable to do it) will never be able to answer the arguments brought by St. Augustine Reply to Cath. Gent. ch 4. s. 6. n. 6. Aug. ep. 8. 9, 19. Hier.against it. This place then was unhappily light upon to ground a distinction of the several Coeius, or distinct Churches of Jews and Christians at Antioch. But, it may be, more evidence for it may be seen in the Rescript of the Council of Ierusalem, which is directed foreign, To the Brethren of Antioch, those of the Gentiles. Act. 15. 23. Schism. p. 75.Acts 15:23But. lest some hidden mysteries should lye in this curtailing the words, let us see them at large. Unto the Brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch, and Syria, and Cilicia. There was nothing then peculiar to those of the Gentiles at Antioch more then in Syria and Cilicia; and if those words foreign imply a Coetus distinct of Gentile-Christians, from the Jews at Antioch, it must do so through all Syria, and Cilicia, Act. 15. 41. 18. 18. 21. 3.Acts 15:41Acts 15:18Acts 15:21Acts 15:3which was Pauls Province, and not Peters, as appears by his travels in the Acts. E…the… then the Apostle of the uncircumcision must form distinct: Churches of Iews and Gentiles in p. 260his preaching through Syria and Silicia▪ (which is irreconcilable with the former pretence of distinct Provinces, asserted by the same Author, who pleads for distinct Coetus) or the foreign, can imply no such thing as a distinct Church of Gentiles to whomsover it is spoken; and so not at Antioch more then through all Syria and Silicia. The plain ground then of the Apostles inscribing the order of the Council to the Brethren of the Gentiles, was, because the matter of that Order did particularly concern them, and not the Jews, as is obvious to any that will but cast an eye upon the 23, 24, 29. verses of the 15. of the Acts. As well might then an order supposed from the Apostles to the several Pastors of the Churches in things concerning them as such, imply that they make distinct Churches from their people, as this order concerning the Gentile Brethren, being therefore directed to them, doth imply their making distinct Churches from the Jewish Brethren in the Cities where they lived together. What is further produced out of Antiquity to this purpose, hath neither evidence nor pertinency enough, to stop the passage of one who is returning from this digression to his former matter. Although then we grant not any such distinct Coetus of the Jews from the Christians, yet that hinders not, but that both Jews and Christians joyning together in one Church, might retain still the Synagogue form of Government among them; which there was no reason at all, why the Christians should scruple the using of, either as Jews or Gentiles, because it imported nothing either Typical and Ceremonial, or heavy and burdensome, which were the grounds, why former customs in use among the Jews were laid aside by the Christians. But instead of that, it was most suitable and agreeable to the state of the Churches in Apostolical times, which was the third consideration to make it probable, that the Synagogue form of Government was used by the Christians. And the suitablenesse of this Government to the Churches, lay in the conveniency of it for the attaining all ends of Government in that condition wherein the Churches were at that time. For Church Officers acting then either in gathering or governing Churches▪ without any authority from Magistrates, such a way of Government was p. 261most suitable to their several Churches, as whereby the Churches might be governed, and yet have no dependancy upon the secular power, which the way of Government in the Synagogues was most convenient for; for the Jews, though they enjoyed a bare permission from the civil state where they lived, yet by the exercise of their Synagogue Government▪ they were able to order all affairs belonging to the service of God, and to keep all members belonging to their several Synagogues in unity and peace among themselves. The case was the same as to Synagogues and Churches; these subsisted by the same permission which the others enjoyed; the end of these was the service of God, and preserving that order among them which might best become societies so constituted; there can be no reason then assigned, why the Apostles in setling particular Churches should not follow the Synagogue in its model of Government. These things may suffice to make it appear probable that they did so, which is all these considerations tend to.

Having thus prepared the way by making it probable, I§. 10. now further enquire into the particular part of Government, and what orders in the Synagogue were, which there is any evidence for, that the Apostles did take up and follow. Here I begin with the thing first propounded, The orders of publick Worship, which did much resemble those of the Synagogue; Only with those alterations which did arise from the advancing of Christianity. That the Christians had their publick and set▪meetings for the service of God, is evident from the first rising of a society constituted upon the account of Christianity. We read of the three thousand converted by Peters Sermon, That they continued in the Apostles doctrine and Acts 2. 42.Acts 2:42fellowship, and breaking of bread, and prayers. Where we have all that was observed in the Synagogue, and somewhat more; here there is publick joyning together, implyed in the word foreign, their solemn prayers expressed, which were constantly observed in the Synagogue; instead of reading the Sections of the Law and Prophets, we have the Apostles teaching by immediate inspiration; and to all these as the proper service of Christianity, is set down the celebration of the Lords-supper, which we shall seldome or ever in the Primitive Church, p. 262read the publick service on Lords Dayes performed without. During the Apostolical times, in which there was such a Landflood of extraordinary gifts overflowing the Church, in the publick meeting we find those persons who were indued with those gifts, to be much in exercising them (as to the custom, agreeing with the Synagogue; but, as to the gifts, exceeding it) concerning the ordering of which for the publick edification of the Church, the Apostle Paul layes down so many Rules in the fourteenth Chapter to the Corinthians; but assoon as this flood began to abate, which was then necessary for the quicker softening the World for receiving Christianity, the publick service began to run in its former channel, as is apparent from the unquestionable testimonies of Iustin Martyr and Tertullian, who most fully relate to us, the order of publick Worship used among the Christians at that time. Iustin Martyr, the most ancient next to Clemens (whose Epistle is lately recovered to the Christian World) of the unquestionable Writers of the Primitive Church, gives us a clear Narration of the publick Orders observed by the Church in his time: foreign Iust. Mart. Apol. 2 p. 98. ed. Par.. Upon the Day call'd Sunday, all the Christians whether in Town or Country assemble in the same place, wherein the Memoires or Commentaries of the Apostles and the writings of the Prophets are read as long as the time will permit; Then the Reader sitting down, the President of the Assembly stands up and makes a Sermon of Instruction and Exhortation to the following so good Examples. After this is ended, we all stand up to prayers; prayers ended, the Bread, Wine and Water are all brought forth; then the President again praying and praising to his utmost ability, the people testifie their consent by saying Amen.

What could have been spoken with greater congruity or p. 263correspondency to the Synagogue, abating the necessary observation of the Bucharist as proper to Christianity?

Here we have the Scriptures read by one appointed for that purpose, as it was in the Synagogue; after which follows the word of Exhortation in use among them by the President of the Assembly, answering to the Ruler of the Synagogue; after this, the publick prayers performed by the same President, as among the Jews by the publick Minister of the Synagogue (as is already observed out of Maimoni), then the solemn acclamation of Amen by the people, the undoubted practice of the Synagogue. To the same purpose Tertullian, who, if he had been to set forth the practice of the Synagogue, could scarce have made choyce of words more accommodated to that purpose. Coimus (saith he) in coetum & congregationem, ut ad Deum quasi manu factà precationibus ambiamus or antes—Cogimur ad divinarum literarum Commemorationem, si quid praesentium temporum qualitas aut praemonere cogit aut recognoscere. Certè fidem sanctis vocibus pascimus, spem erigimus, fi…uciam figimus, disciplinam praeceptorum nihilominus inculcationibus densamus; ibidem etiam exhortationes, castigationes, & censura divina. Nam & judicatur magno cum pondere, ut Apologe…. cap. 3….apud certos de Dei conspectu, summumque futuri judicii prae judicium est, siquis ita deliquerit, ut à communicatione orationis & conventûs & omnis sancti commercii relegetur. Prasident probati quique seniores, honorem istum non pretio sed testimonio adepti. Where we have the same orders for Prayers, reading the Scriptures according to occasions, and Sermons made out of them for increase of faith, raising hope, strengthening confidence. We have the Discipline of the Church answering the admonitions, and excommunication of the Synagogue; and last of all, we have the Bench of Elders sitting in these Assemblies, and ordering the things belonging to them.

Thus much for the general correspondency between the publick service of the Church and Synagogue; they that would see more particulars, may read our Learned Mr. Thorndikes Discourse of the service of God in Religious Assemblies. Whose design throughout is to make this out more at large; But we must only touch at these things by the way; as it were, look into the Synagogue, and go on our way.

p. 264We therefore proceed from their service, to their custom of §. 11.Ordination, which was evidently taken up by the Christians from a correspondency to the Synagogue. For which we are first to take notice, that the Rulers of the Church under the Gospel, do not properly succeed the Priests and Levites under the Law, who…e Office was Ceremonial, and who were not admitted by any solemn Ordination into their Function, but succeeded by birth into their places; only the great Sanhedrin did judge of their fitnesse, as to birth and body, before their entrance upon their Function. So the Jewish Doctors tell us foreign Cod. Middoth. c. 5. s. 3.i. e. In the stone Parlour, the great Sanhedrin of Israel sat, and did there judge the Priests. The Priest that was found defective, put on mourning garments, and so went forth▪ he that was not, put on white, and went in and ministred with the Priests his Brethren. And when no fault was found in the sons of Aaron, they observed a festival solemnity for it. Three things are observable in this Testimony: First, That the inquiry that was made concerningV. Selden. de succes. ad Pontif. Ebre. l. 2. c. 2, 3, 5, & 6. the Priests, was chiefly concerning the purity of their birth, and the freedom of their bodies from those defects which the Law mentions, unlesse in the case of grosser and more scandalous sins, as Idolatry, Murther, &c. by which they were excluded from the Priestly Office. The second, is, That the great Sanhedrin had this inspection over, and examination of the Priests before their admission; For what that Learned man Const. L'Empereur there conjectures, That there was an Ecclesiastical Sanhedrin which did passe judgementNot in Cod. Middoth. p. 187, 188. on these things, is overthrown by the very words of the Talmudists already cited. The last thing observable, is, The garments which the Priests put on, viz. white rayment upon his approbation by the Sanhedrin, and soon after they were admitted into the Temple with great joy; to which our saviour manifestly alludes, Revel. 3. 4. 5. Thou hast a few names even in Sardis which have not defiled their garments, and they shall walk with me in white, for they are worthy. He that overcometh, the same shall be cloathed in white Rayment. But the Priests under the Law, were never ordained by imposition of hands, as the Elders and Rulers of the Synagogue p. 265were; and if any of them came to that Office, they as well as others had peculiar designation and appointment to it. It is then a common mistake to think that the Ministers of the Gospel succeed by way of correspondence and Analogy to the Priests under the Law; which mistake hath been the foundation and original of many Errors. For when in the Primitive Church, the name of Priests came to be attributed to Gospel-Ministers from a fair Complyance (as was thought then) of the Christians onelyonly to the name used both among Jewes and Gentiles; in process of time, corruptions increasing in the Church, those names that were used by the Christians by way of Analogy and Accommodation, brought in the things themselves primarily intended by those names; so by the Metaphorical names of Priests and Altars, at last came up the sacrifice of the Mass; without which, they thought the names of Priests and Altar were insignificant. This mistake we see run all along through the Writers of the Church, assoon as the name Priests was applyed to the Elders of the Church, that they derived their succession from the Priests of Aarons Isid Hisp. de Ecclesia offic. l. 2. c. 7 Ive Carnot. decret. p. 6. c. 11. Ep. 85.order, Presbyterorum ordo exordium sumpsit à filiis Aaron. Qui enim sacerdotes vocabantur in v…teri Testamento, hi sunt qui nunc appestantur Presbyteri: & qui nuncupabantur principes sacerdotum, nuno Episcopi nominantur; as Isidorus; and Ivo tell us. So before them both, Ierome in his known Epistle to Evagrius. Et ut sciamus traditiones Apostolicas sumptas de veteri Testamento, Quod Aaron & filii ejus atque Levitae Dissert. 2. cap. 28.in Temple fuerunt: hoc sibi Episcopi & Presbyteri atque Diaconi vendicent in Ecclesia. From which words a leo…ned Doctor, and strenuous assertor of the jus divinum of Prelacy, questions not but to make Ierome, either apparently contradictious to himself, or else to assert, that the superiority of Bishops above Presbyters was by his Confession an Apostolical Tradition. For saith he, Nihil manifestius dici potuit; and S. 2. Quid ad hoc responderi possit, aut quo foreign artificio deliniri aut deludi tam diserta affirmatio, fateor ego …e divinando assequi non posse; sed è contra exiis quae D. Blondellus, quae Walo, quae Ludov. Capellus h…c in re praestiterunt, mihi persuasissimum esse, Nihil uspiam contra aperta… lucem obtendi posse. In a case then so desperate as poor Ierome lies in, by p. 266a wound he is supposed to have given himself, when the priest and the Levite hath passed him by, it will be a piece of Charity in our passing by the way a little to consider his Case, to see whether there be any hopes of recovery. We take it then for granted, that Ierome hath already said, that Apostolus perspi…uè docet, eosdem esse Presbytsros quos & Episcopos, in the same Epistle which he proves there at large; and in another place; Si…t ergo Presbyteri sciunt se ex Ecclesiae consuetudine, ei qui sibi praeposi…us fuerit, esse subjectos; it a Episcopi noverint se magis consuetudine, quam disposition is Dominicae Comment. in 1. Tit.veritate Presbyteris esse majores, & in commune debere Ecclesiam regere. The difficulty now lyes in the reconciling this with what is before c…ted out of the same Author; Some solve it by saying, that, in Ieroms sense Apostolical Tradition and Ecclesiaestical Custome are the same, as ad Marcellum, he saith the observation of Lent is Apostolica traditio, and advers. Luciferian, shith, it is Ecclesiae consu…tudo; so that by Apostolical Tradition, he meant not an Apostolical Institution, but an Ecclesiastical Custome. And if Ierome speak according to the general Vogue, this Solution may be sufficient notwithstanding what is said against it: for, according to that common rule of Austin, Things that were generally in use, and no certain Author assigned of them, were attributed to the Apostles. Two things therefore I shall lay down for reconciling Ierome to himself: The first is, the difference between Traditio Apostolica, and Traditio Apostolorum; this latter doth indeed imply the thing spoken of to have proceeded from the Apostles themselves; but the former may be applyed to what was in practice after the Apostles times; and the reason of it is▪ that what ever was done in the Primitive Church, supposed to be agreeable to Apostolical practice, was called Apostolical. Thence the Bishops See was called Sedes De praescrip. adv. h…ret. c. 32. Epist. lib. 6. Ep. 1.Apostolic…, as Tertullian tells us, ob consang…i…itatem doctrinae. So Sidonius Apollinaris calls the See of L…p…s the Bishop of Tricassium in France, Sedem Apostolicam. And the Bishops of the Church were called Viri Apostolici, and thence the Constitutions which goe under the Apostles names, were so called, saith▪ Albaspinaeus, ab antiquitate: …nam cum corum Observat. lib. 1 c. 13.aliquot ab Apostolorum successoribus (qui teste Tertullian… ▪ Apostolici p. 267viri …omi…ahantur.) facti essent, Apostolicorum primù… Canones, deinde nonnullorum Latinorum ignorantia, aliquot literarum detractione, Apostolorum dicti sunt. By which we see what ever was conceived to be of any great antiquity in the Church, though it was not thought to have come from the Apostles themselves, yet it was called Apostolioal▪ so that in this sense, Traditio Apostolica, is no more then Traditio autiqua, or ab Apostolicis viris profecta, which was meant rather of those that were conceived to succeed the Apostles, then of the Apostles themselves. But I answer, Secondly, that granting Traditio Apostolica to mean Traditio Apostolorum, yet Ierome is far from contradicting himself, which is obvious to any that will read the words before, and consider their coherence. The scope and drift of his Epistle, is to chastise the arrogance of one who made Deacons superiour to Presbyters. Audio quendam in tantam erupisse vecordiam ut Diaconos Presbyteris, id est, Episcopis anteferret, and so spends a great part of the Epistle, to prove that a Bishop and Presbyter are the same; and at last brings in these words; giving the account, Why Paul to Timothy and Titus mentions no Presbyters; Quia in Episcopo & Presbyter continetur. Aut igitur ex Presbytero ordinetur Diaconus, ut Presbyter minor Diacono comprobetur, in quem crescat ex parv…; aut si ex Diacono ordinatur Presbyter, noverit se lucris minorem, Sacerdo…i… esse majorem. And then presently adds, Et ut sciamus traditiones Apostolicas sumptas de veteri Testamento, Quod Aaron & Filii ejus atq▪ Levitae in Templo fuerunt, hoc sibi Episcopi & Presbyteri atque Diaconi vendicent in Ecclesiâ. It it imaginable that a man who had been proving all along the superiority of a Presbyter above a Deacon, because of his Identity with a Bishop in the Aposties times, should at the same time say, that a Bishop was above a Presbyter by the Apostles institution, and so directly overthrow all he had been saying before? Much as if one should go about to prove that the Pr…fectus urbis, and the Curatores urbis in Alexander Severus his time… ▪ were the same Office, and to that end should make use of the Constitution of that Emperour whereby he appointed 14. p. 268Curatores urbis, and set the Praefectus in an Office above them. Such an incongruity is scarce incident to a man of very ordinary esteem for intellectuals, much less to such a one as Ierome is reputed to be. The plain meaning then of Ierome is no more but this, that as Aaron and his sons in the order of Priesthood were above the Levites under the Law: So the Bishops and Presbyters in the order of the Evangelical Priesthood are above the Deacons under the Gospel. For the comparison runs not between Aaron and his sons under the Law, and Bishops and Presbyters under the Gospel; but between Aaron and his sonnes as one part of the comparison under the Law, and the Levites under them as the other; so under the Gospel, Bishops and Presbyters make one part of the comparison, answering to Aaron and his Sonnes in that wherein they all agree; viz. The Order of Priest hood; and the other part under the Gospel is that of Deacons answering to the Levites under the Law. The Opposition is not then in the power of jurisdiction between Bishops and Priests, but between the same power of Order, which is alike both in Bishops and Presbyters (according to the acknowledgement of all) to the Office of Deacons which stood in Competition with them. Thus I hope we have left Ierome at perfect Harmony with himself, notwithstanding the attempt made to make him so palpably contradict himself; which having thus done, we are at liberty to proceed in our former course; onelyonly hereby we see how unhappily those arguments succeed which are brought from the Analogy between the Aaronical Priest hood, to endeavour the setting up of a Ius Divinum of a parallel superiority under the Gospel. All which arguments are taken off by this one thing we are now upon, viz. that the orders and degrees under the Gospel, were not taken up from Analogy to the Temple, but to the Synagogue: Which we now make out as to Ordination, in three things; the manner of conferring it, the persons authorized to do it, the remaining effect of it upon the person receiving it.