question was started at Antioch Acts 14. 26. with Acts 15. 2. from thence they sent to Ierusalem for a resolution the decree of the Council there concerns not only Aâ—tioch but Syria and Cilicia which were under the Jurisdiction of Antioch and therefore Metropolitan Church 〈…〉 e jure divino I am afraid the argument would sc 〈…〉 ow its self in the dress of a Syllogism Thus it runs If upon the occasion of the question at Antioch the decree of the Apostles made at Ierusalem concern all the Churches of Syria and Cilicia then all these Churches had a dependance upon the Metropolis of Antioch but the anâ—ecedent is true therefore the consequent Let us see how the argument will do in another â—orm If upon the occasion of the question at Antioch the decree of the Apostles concerned all the Churches of Christians conversing with Jews then all these Churches had dependance upon the Church of Antioch But c. How thankfull would the Papists have been if onely Rome had been put instead of Antiochâ— and then the conclusion had been true what ever the premises were But in good earnest doth the Churches of Syria and Cilicia being bound by this Decree prove their subordination to Antioch or to the Apostles Were they bound because Antioch was their Metropolis or because they were the Apostles who resolved the question but were not the Churches of Phrygia and Galatia bound to observe these decrees as well as others For of these it is said that the Apostles went through the Cities of them delivering the decrees to keep as it is expressed Acts 16. 4. compared with the 6. verse Or do the decrees of the Apostles concern only those to whom they are inscribed and upon whose occasion they are penned Then by the same reason Pauls Epistles being written many of them upon occasions as that to the Corinthians being directed to the Metropolis of Corinth doth only concern the Church of that City and those of Achaia that were subject to the jurisdiction of the City and so for the rest of the Epistles A fair way to make the Word of God of no effect to us because for sooth we live not in obedience to those Metropoles to which the Epistles were directed From whence we are told how many things we may understand by this notion of Metropolitans Especially why Ignatius superscribes his Epistle to the Romans 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the Church which preâ—ides in the place of the Roman region or the suburbicariâ—n Provinces But let us see whether this place may not be understood better without the help of this notion Casaubon calls it locutionem barbarâ—m Vedelius is more favourable to it and thinks si non elegans saltem viâ—ii libera est and explains it by the suburbicarian Provinces and makes the sense of it to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the place which is the Roman region and parallels it with the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Luke 9. 10. Bellarmine thinks he hath â—ound the Popes universal power in his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but methinks the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should hardly be rendred Orbis universus unless Bellarmine were no more skil'd in Greek then Casaubon thinks he was whom he calls in the pâ—ace forecited hominem Graecarum literarum prorsus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The most ingenuous conjecture concerning this place is that of our learned Mr. Thorndike The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith he is here used as many times besides speaking of those places which a man would neither call Cities nor Towns as Acts 27 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being to sail by the places of Asia 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is plain it signifies the countrey 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 then must necessarily signifie here the Vaticane lying in the Fields as a suburb to Rome and being the place where St. Peter was buried and where the Iews of Rome then dwâ—lt as we learn by Philo legatione ad Caium out of whom he produceth a large place to that purpose and so makes this the Church of the Jewish Christians the Vaticane being then the Iewry of Rome but there being no clear evidence of any such distinction of Churches there and as little reason why Ignatius should write to the Church of the Jewish Christians and not to the Church of the Gentile Christians I therefore embrace his sense of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the Vatican but explain it in another way viz. as we have already shewed that the chief places of meeting for the Christians in Gentile Rome was in the Coemeteries of the Martyrs now these Coemeteria were all of them without the City and the Coemeteria where Peter Linus Cletus and some other of the Primitive Martyrs lay interr'd in the Vatican beyond the River Tiber. So Damasus in the life of Cletus Qui etiam sepultus est juxta corpus B. Petri in Vaticano The Church then in the pâ—ace of the region of the Romans is the Christian-Church of Rome assembling chiefly in the Coemeteries of the Vatican or any other of those Vaults which were in the Fields at a good distance from the City But yet there is one argument more for Metropolitans and that is from the importance of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is taken to signifie both the City and Countrey and so the inscription of Clemens his Epistle is explained 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. the Church of God dwelling about Rome to the Church dwelling about Corinth whereby is supposed to be comprehended the whole Territories which being these were Metropoles takes in the whole Province And so Polycarp 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But all this ariseth from a mistake of the signification of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies not so much accolere as incolere and therefore the old Latin Version renders it Ecclâ—siae Dei quae est Philippis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one that removes from one City to sojourn in another And the ground of attributing that name to the Christian Churches was either because that many of the first Christians being Jews they did truly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being as strangers out of their own countrey or else among the Christians because by reason of their continual persecutions they were still put in mind of their flitting uncertain condition in the World their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 countrey citizenship being in Heaven Of this the Apostles often tell them from hence iâ— came to signifie the Society of such Christians so living together which as it encreased so the notion of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 encreased and so went from the City into the countrey and came not from the countrey into the City for if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should be taken for accolere then it necessarily follows that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cannot signifie the Church of Rome and the Territories belonging to it but the Church adjacent to
used to say that their Gods beg'd them all their play-days After telling us of the mirth and jollity used after their sacrifices which was alwayes the second course at these Festivalls thence the Jews called their High Festival days 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 good days or days of Mirth We read of few Nations but had these Festival Solemnities for the honour of their Gods The Persians had theirs for their God Mithras The Babylonians saith Athenaeus out of Berosus had their Feast Sacaea which Casaubon would have called Sesacaea because Babylon in Scripture is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sesac as the Ludi Romani were from Rome It is to no purpose to mention the Festivals observed by the Greeks and Romans in honour of their Gods being so many that whole books have been composed of them That which I observe from hence is that Societies for the Worship of God are Natural because of their solemn resting from their ordinary labour upon days appointed for the honour of their Gods Thereby shewing they looked upon those as peculiar days and themselves as peculiar Societies upon those days from what they were at other times One thing more evidenceth this among them their solemn and secret Mysteries which were Societies on purpose as pretended for this very end in honor of their Gods Their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as they were wont to call them preserved with the greatest secrecy by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Their great and lesser Eleusinian Samothracian Cotyttian Mithriacal Mysteries to which none were admitted without passing through many degrees 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 before they came to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 perfectly initiated Wherein they were much imitated by the Christians in the Celebration of the Lords Supper about the fourth or fifth Century as is largely showed by Casaubon in a most learned Diutriba on this Subject in his Exercitations to which I refer the Reader We see what strict Rules they had for Admission of any into these pretendedly Sacred but truly most impious Societies In those of Mithras as Suidas and Nonnus tell us they passed through eighty degrees before they were throughly initiated and seldome escaped with life However we may gain from them this general notion that they looked on a peculiar distinct Society as necessary for the worship and honor of the Deity they served Thus we see à posteriori how a distinct Society for Gods Worship appears to be a Dictate of Nature We shall now see if we can evidence à priori that it is a Dictate of Nature that there must be some Society for the Worship of God Three things will make that appear First The sociableness of Mans Nature Man is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Creature that loves to herd it self with those of his own kind 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If a man had all other comforts of life and wanted Society he would not think his life worth leading as Aristotle observes who further takes notice of the sociableness of mans Nature 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from the general commendation that is given to courteous and affable men I deny not but in the entring into a Civil State or Society either fear or profit might be a main inducement to it but though it be an inducement yet there must be supposed an inclinableness to a Society or a Commonwealth might be assoon set up among Tygers as Men. So that they have very little ground of Reason who from the external inducements of fear or profit in entring into Civil Societies do conclude against the sociableness of Mans Nature If then Mans Nature be sociable in all other things then Nature will tell men they ought to be so in things of common concernment to them all and which is every ones work or duty as Religion is if in other things men are sociable much more in this For Secondly Religion gives a great improvement to mans sociable Nature and therefore Plutarch well calls Religion 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A Foundation that knits and joynts Societies together And thence wisely observes that in the Constitution of Laws 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the first and greatest thing to be looked at is the Religion established or the Opinions men entertain of the Gods To which he subjoyns this excellent reason 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That it is more impossible for a Commonwealth either to be formed or subsist without Religion then a City to si and without Foundations Thence a prudent States-man called Religion the best Reason of State It appears then evidently both from reason and experience that Religion hath a great influence upon the modelling and ordering Civil Societies whence as the same Moralist observes Lycurgus did as it were consecrate the Lacedaemonians with Religious Rites as Numa the Romans Ion the Athenians and Deucalion the Hellens Whence some half-witted men but I know not whether more defective in wit or grace have observing the great influence Religion hath to keep men in order been ready to look upon it as only a Politick device to awe men with greater ease It is not here a place largely to Examine and Refute this unworthy pretence Only I adjure them by their onely Goddess Reason to tell me whence come men to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Plutarch expresseth it To be so easily awed by the hopes and fears of another life more then other creatures are Why are they at all affected with the discourse of them Why cannot they shake off the thoughts of these things when they please Are not men hereby made the most miserable of creatures For no other creature can be perswaded that it shall ever quench its thirst in those Rivers of pleasures nor make its bed in everlasting flames The beasts of Sardinia that have their only refreshment by the Dew of Heaven yet have never any hopes to â—ome there The Lyon never keeps from his prey by the thoughts and fears of a great Tribunal But suppose onely mankind of all creatures should be liable to be thus imposed on as is pretended How comes it to pass that in no age of the world this Imposture hath not been discovered confuted and shaken off by some people as wise as themselves Or have there never been any such in the world But whence come some men then to be wiser then others Whence come some to know things which all the Reason in the World could never finde out without Revelation Whence comes a power to doe any thing above the course of Nature if there be nothing but Nature Or are all men deceived that believe such things If so then there must be somewhat that must deceive men men would not deceive themselves and they could not be so long imposed upon by other men there must be then some evil spirit must do it and whence should that come from Nature too but then whence comes Nature its self from its self too or some thing ' else
divide and separate from Church-society so it is an offence on the other side to continue communion when it is a duty to withdraw it For the resolving this knotty and intricate Question I shall lay down some things by way of premisall and come closely to the resolution of it First Every Christian is under an obligation to joyn in Church-society with others because it is his duty to professe himself a Christian and to own his Religion publickly and to partake of the Ordinances and Sacraments of the Gospel which cannot be without society with some Church or other Every Christian as such is bound to look upon himself as the member of a body viz. the visible Church of Christ and how can he be known to be a member who is not united with other parts of the body There is then an obligation upon all Christianâ— to engage in a religious Society with others for partaking of the Ordinances of the Gospel It hath been a case disputed by some particularly by Grotius the supposed Author of a little Tract An semper sit communicandum per symbolu when he designed the Syncretism with the Church of Rome whether in a time when Churches are divided it be a Christians duty to communicate with any of those parties which divide the Church and not rather to suspend communion from all of them A case not hard to be decided for either the person questioning it doth suppose the Churches divided to remain true Churches but some to be more pure then others in which case by vertue of his generall obligation to communion he is bound to adhere to that Church which appears most to retain its Evangelicall purity Or else he must suppose one to be a true Church and the other not in which the case is clearer that he is bound to communicate with the true Church or he must judge them alike impure which is a case hard to be found but supposing it is so either he hath joyned formerly with one of them or he is now to choose which to joyn with if he be joyned already with that Church and sees no other but as impure as that he is bound to declare against the impurity of the Church and to continue his communion with it if he be to choose communion he may so long suspend till he be satisfied which Church comes nearest to the primitive constitution and no longer And therefore I know not whether Chrysostomes act were to be commended who after being made a Deacon in the Church of Antioch by Meletius upon his death because Flavianus came in irregularly as Bishop of the Church would neither communicate with him nor with Paulinus another Bishop at that time in the City nor with the Meletians but for three years time withdrew himself from communion with any of them Much lesse were the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the Haesitantes as the Latins called them to be commended who after the determination of the Council of Chalcedou against Entyches because of great differences remaining in Egypt and the Eastern Churches followed Zenoes Henoticum and would communicate neither with the Orthodox Churches nor Eutychians But I see not what censure Jâ—â—ome could in â—urr who going into the Diocesse of Antioeh and finding the Churches there under great divisions there being besides the Arian Bishop three others in the Church of Antioch Meletius Paulinus and Vitalis did so long suspend communion with any of them till he had satisfied himself about the occasion of the Schism and the innocency of the persons and Churches engaged in it But if he had withdrawn longer he had offended against his obligation to joyn in Church-society with others for participation of Gospel-Ordinances which is the necessary duty of every Christian. Secondly Every Christian actually joyned in Church-society with others is so long bound to maintain society with them till his communion with them becomes sin For nothing else can justifie withdrawing from such a Society but the unlawfulness of continuing any longer in it Supposing a Church then to remain true as to its constitution and essentials but there be many corruptions crept into that Church whether is it the duty of a Christian to withdraw from that Church because of those corruptions and to gather new Churches only for purer administration or to joyn with them only for that end This as far as I understand it is the state of the Controversie between our Parochiall Churches and the Congregationall The resolution of this great Question must depend on this Whether is it a sin to communicate with Churches true as to essentialls but supposed corrupt in the exercise of discipline For Parochiall Churches are not denyed to have the essentialls of true Churches by any sober Congregational men For there is in them the true Word of God preached the true Sacraments administred and an implicite Covenant between Pastor and People in their joyning together All that is pleaded then is corruption and defect in the exercise and administration of Church order and Discipline Now that it is lawfull for Christians to joyn with Churches so defective is not only acknowledged by Reverend Mr. Norton in his answer to Apollius but largely and fully proved For which he layes down five Propositions which deserve to be seriously considered by all which make that a plea for withdrawing from society with other Churches First A Believer may lawfully joyn himself in communion with such a Church where he cannot enjoy all the Ordinances of God aâ— in the Jewish Church in our Saviours time which refused the Gospel of Christ and the baptism of Iohn and yet our Saviour bids us hear the Scribes and Pharisees sitting in Moses Chair which hearing saith he doth imply conjunctionem Ecclesiae Iudaicae a joyning with the Iewish Church and so with Churches rejecting an article of faith in the Church of Corinth the doctrine of the Reâ—â—â—rection in the Churches of Galatia the doctrine of Ju 〈…〉 ion by faith but the Apostle no-where requires separation on that account from them Secondly A Believer may lawfully joyn in communion with such a Church in which some corruption in the worship of God is tolerated without Reformation As the offering on High-places from Solomon to Hezâ—kiah in the Church of Iuda observation of Circumcâ—sion and the necessity of keeping the Ceremonial Law in the Churches of Galaâ—ia Thirdly A Believer may lawfully joyn himself in communion with such a Church in which such are admitted to Sacraments who give no evident signs of grace but seem to be Lovers of this World which he proves because it is every ones main duty to examine himself and because anothers sin is no hurt to him and therefore cannot keep him from his duty and then by mens coming unworthily non polluitur communio licet minuitur consolatio the communion iâ— not defiled though the comfort of it be diminished He brings instance from the Church of Corinth among whom were many
the Jewes as a significative rite in the ordaining the Elders among them and thereby qualifying them either to be members of their Sanhedrins or Teachers of the Law Aâ— twofold use I find of this Symbolical Rite beside the solemn designation of the person on whom the hands are laid The first is to denote the delivery of the person or thing thus laid hands upon for the right use and peculiar service of God And that I suppose was the reason of laying hands upon the Beast under the Law which was to be sacrificed thereby noting their own parting with any right in it and giving it up to be the Lords for a sacrifice to him Thus in the Civill Law this delivery is requisite in the transferring Dominion which they call translatio de manu in manum The second end of laying on of hands was the solemn Iuvocation of the Divine presence and assistance to be upon and with the person upon whom the hands are thus laid For the hands with us being the instruments of action they did by stretching out their hands upon the person represent the efficacy of Divine Power which they implored in behalf of the perâ—on thus designed Tunc enim â—rabant ut sic Dei efficacia esset super illum sicut manus efficaciae symbolum ei imponebatur as Grotius observes Thence in all solemn Prayers wherein any person was particularly designed they made use of this Custome of imposition of Hands from which Custome Augustine speaks Quid aliud est manuum impositio nisi oratio super hominem Thence when Iacob prayed over Iosephs Children he laid his hands upon them so when Moses prayed over Ioshua The practice likewise our Saviour used in blessing Children healing the Sick and the Apostles in conferring the Gifts of the Holy-Ghost and from thence it was conveyed into the practice of the Primitive Church who used it in any more solemn invocation of the name of God in behalf of any particular persons As over the sick upon Repentance and Reconciliation to the Church in Confirmation and in Matrimony which as Grotius observes is to this day used in the Abissine Churches But the most solemn and peculiar use of this Imposition of hands among the Jews was in the designing of any Persons for any publike imployment among them Not as though the bare Imposition of hands did conferre any power upon the Person no more then the bare delivery of a thing in Law gives a legall Title to it without express transferring Dominion with it but with that Ceremony they joyned those words whereby they did confer that Authority upon them Which were to this purpose 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ecce sis tu Ordinatus or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ego ordino te or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sis ordinatus to which they added according to the authority they ordained them to some thing peculiarly expressing it whether it was for causes finable or pecuniary or binding and loosing or ruling in the Synagogue Which is a thing deserving consideration by those who use the rite of imposing hands in Ordination without any thing expressing that authority they convey by that Ordination This custome being so generally in use among the Jews in the time when the Apostles were sent forth with Authority for gathering and setling Churches we find them accordingly making use of this according to the former practice either in any more solemn invocation of the presence of God upon any persons or designation and appointing them for any peculiar service or function For we have no ground to think that the Apostles had any peculiar command for laying on their hands upon persons in Prayer over them or Ordination of them But the thing its self being enjoyned them viz. the setting apart some persons for the peculiar work of attendance upon the necessities of the Churches by them planted they took up and made use of a laudable Rite and Custome then in use upon such occasions And so we find the Apostles using it in the solemn designation of some persons to the Office of Deacons answering to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Synagogue whose Office was to collect the moneys for the poor and to distribute it among them Afterwards we read it used upon an occasion not heard of in the Synagogue which was for the conferring the gifts of the Holy-Ghost but although the occasion was extraordinary yet supposing the occasion the use of that rite in it was very suitable in as much as those gifts did so much answer to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which the Jewes conceived did rest upon those who were so ordained by imposition of hands The next time we meet with this rite was upon a peculiar Designation to a particular service of persons already appointed by God for the work of the Ministry which is of Paul and Barnabas by the Prophets and Teachers at Antioch whereby God doth set forth the use of that Rite of Ordination to the Christian Churches Accordingly we find it after practised in the Church Timothy being ordained by the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery And Timothy hath direction given him for the right management of it afterwards Lay hands suddenly on no man For they that would interpret that of reconciling men to the Church by that Rite must first give us Evidence of so early an use of that Custome which doth not yet appear But there is one place commonly brought to prove that the Apostles in Ordaining Elders in the Christian Churches did not observe the Jewish Form of laying on of hands but observed a way quite different from the Jewish practice viz. appointing them by the choice consent and suffrages of the people Which place is Acts 14 23. where it is said of Paul and Barnabas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We render it Ordaining them Elders in every Church But others from the signification of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 would have it rendered When they had appointed Elders by the suffrages of the people But how little the peoples power of Ordination can be inferred from these words will be evident to any one that shall but consider these things First that though 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 did originally signifie the choosing by way of suffrage among the Greeks yet before the time of Lukes writing this the word was used for simple designation without that Ceremony So Hesychius interprets it by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the word used of Titus for ordaining Elders in every City and in Demosthenes and others it occurs for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to decree and appoint and that sense of the word appears in Saint Luke himself Acts 10. 41. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Witnesses foreappointed of God Many examples of this signification are brought by Learned men of Writers before and about the time when Luke Writ
as yet strangers to the Covenant of promise and aliens from the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 society of Christians And here I conceive a mistake of some men lies when they think the Apostles respected onely the Ruling of those which were already converted for though this were one part of their work yet they had an eye to the main Design then on foot the subjecting the World to the Obedience of Faith in order to which it was necessity in places of great resort and extent to place not onely such as might be sufficient to superintend the Affairs of the Church but such as might lay out themselves the most in Preaching the Gospel in order to converting others Haveing laid down these things by way of premisal we will see what advantage we can make of them in order to our purpose First then I say that in Churches consisting of a small number of Believers where there was no great probability of a large increase afterwards One single Pastour With Deacons under him were onely constituted by the Apostles for the ruling of those Churches Where the work was not so great but a Pastour and Deacons might do it what need was there of having more and in the great scarcity of fit Persons for setled Rulers then and the great multitude and necessity of unfixed Officers for preaching the Gospel abroad many persons fit for that work could not be spared to be constantly Resident upon a place Now that in some places at first there were none placed but onely a Pastour and Deacons I shall confirm by these following Testimonies The first is that of Clement in his Epistle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Apostles therefore preaching abroad through Countreys and Cities ordained the First-fruits of such as believed having proved them by the Spirit to be Bishops and Deacons for them that should afterwards believe Whether by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we understand Villages or Regions is not material for it is certain here the Author takes it as distinct from Cities and there is nothing I grant expressed where the Apostles did place Bishops and Deacons exclusive of other places i. e. whether onely in Cities or Countreys but it is evident by this that where-ever they planted Churches they ordained Bishops and Deacons whether those Churches were in the City or Countrey And here we find no other Officers setled in those Churches but Bishops and Deacons And that there were no more in those Churches then he speaks of appears from his Designe of paralleling the Church-Officers in the Gospel to those under the Law and therefore it was here necessary to enumerate all that were then in the Churches The main controversie is what these Bishops were whether many in one place or onely one and if but one whether a Bishop in the modern Sense or no. For the first here is nothing implying any necessity of having more then one in a place which will further be made appear by and by out of other Testimonies which will help to explain this As for the other thing we must distinguish of the Notion of a Bishop For he is either such a one as hath none over him in the Church or he is such a one as hath a power over Presbyters acting under him and by authority derived from him If we take it in the first Sense so every Pastor of a Church having none exercising jurisdiction over him is a Bishop and so every such single Pastor in the Churches of the Primitive times was a Bishop in this Sense as every Master of a Family before Societies for Government were introduced might be called a King because he had none above him to command him but if we take a Bishop in the more proper Sense for one that hath power over Presbyters and People such a one these single Pastors were not could not be For it is supposed that these were onely single Pastors But then it is said that after other Presbyters were appointed then these single Pastors were properly Bishops but to that I answer First they could not be proper Bishops by vertue of their first Constitution for then they had no power over any Presbyters but onely over the Deacons and People and therefore it would be well worth considering how a power of jurisdiction over Presbyters can be derived from those single Pastors of Churches that had no Presbyters joyned with them It must be then clearly and evidently proved that it was the Apostles intention that these single Pastors should have the power over Presbyters when the Churches necessity did require their help which intention must be manifested and declared by some manifestation of it as a Law of Christ or nothing can thence be deduced of perpetual concernment to the Church of Christ. Secondly either they were Bishops before or onely after the appointment of Presbyters if before then a Bishop and a Presbyter having no Bishop over him are all one if after onely then it was by his communicating power to Presbyters to be such or their choice which made him their Bishop if the first then Presbyters quoad ordinem are onely a humane institution it being acknowledged that no Evidence can be brought from Scripture for them and for any Act of the Apostles not recorded in Scripture for the constituting of them it must goe among unwritten Traditions and if that be a Law still binding the Church then there are such which occurre not in the Word of GOD and so that must be an imperfect coppy of Divine Lawes If he were made Bishop by an Act of the Presbyters then Presbyters have power to make a Bishop and so Episcopacy is an humane institution depending upon the voluntary Act of Presbyters But the clearest Evidence for one single Pastour with Deacons in some Churches at the beginning of Christianity is that of Epiphanius which though somewhat large I shall recite because if I mistake not the curtailing of this Testimony hath made it speak otherwise then ever Epiphanius meant 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. The Sense of Epiphanius is very intricate and obscure we â—hall endeavour to explain it He is giving Aerius an account why Paul in his Epistle to Timothy mentions onely Bishops and Deacons and passeth over Presbyters His account is this first he chaâ—geth Aerius with ignorance of the Series of History which he calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the profound and ancient Records the Church wherein it is expressed that upon the first Preaching of the Gospel the Apostle writ according to the present state of things Where Bishops were not yet appointed for so certainly it should be read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for then he must contradict himself the Apostle writes to Bishops and Deacons for the Apostles could not settle all things at first for there was a necessity of Presbyters and Deacons for by these two Orders all Ecclesiastical Offices might be performed for where so I read it 〈◊〉
that either there must be several Pastors taking the pastoral charge of one Congregation which is not very suitable with the principles of those I now dispute against or else many congregations in one City are all called but one Church and one flock which is the thing I plead for And therefore it is an observation of good use to the purpose in hand that the New Testâ—ment speaking of the Churches in a Province alwayes speakes of them in the plural number as the Churches of Iudaea Gal. 1. 22 1 Thes. 2 14. The Churches of Samaâ—iâ— and Galilee Acts 9. 31. The Churches of Syria and Câ—icia Acts 15. 41. The Churches of Galatia 1 Cor. 16. 1. Gal 1. 1 2. The Churches of Asia Rom. 16. 16. Rev. 1. 11. But when it speaks of any particular City then it is alwayes used in the Singular number as the Church at Jerusalem Acts 8. 1. 15 4 22. The Church at Antioch Acts 11. 26 13. 1. The Church at Corinth 1 Cor. 1. 2. 2 Cor. 1. 1â— and so of all the seven Churches of Asia the Church of Ephesus Smyrna c. So that we cannot find in Scripture the least footstep of any difference between a Church and the Christians of such a City whereas had the notion of a Church been restrained to a particular congregation doubtlesse we should have found some difference as to the Scriptures speaking of the several places For it is scarce imaginable that in all those Cities spoken of as for example Ephesus where Paul was for above two years together that there should be no more converts then would make one Congregation Accordingly in the times immediately after the Apostles the same language and custom continued still So Clement inscribes his Epistle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Church of God which is at Rome to the Church of God which is at Corinth So by that it is plain that all the Believers at that time in Rome made up but one Church as likewise did they at Corinth Sâ— Polycarp in the Epistle written by him from the Church at Smyrna to the Church at Phylomilium 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so in his Epistle to the Philippians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Polycarp and the Elders with him to the Church which is at Philippi Origen compares the Church of God at Athens Corinth Alexandria and oâ—her places with the people of those several Cities and so the Churches Senate with the peoples and the Churches 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is his word chief Ruler with the Maior of those Cities implying thereby that as there was one civil Society in such places to make a City so there was a Society of Christians incorporated together to make a Church So that a Church setled with a full power belonging to it and exerc sing all acts of Church-discipline within its self was antiently the same with the Society of Christians in a City Not but that the name Church is attributed sometimes to Families in which sense Tertullian speaks Ubi duo aut tres sunt ibi Ecclesia est licet Laici And may on the same account be attributed to a small place such as many imagine the Church of Cenchrea to be it being a port to Corinth on the Sinus Sarònicus but Stephanus Byzantinus calls it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Suidas saith no more of it then that it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Strabo and Pausanias only speak of the scituation of it as one of the poâ—ts of Corinth lying in the way from Tegaea to Argos nor is any more said of it by Pliny then that it answers to Lechaeum the port on the other side upon the Sinus Corinthiacus Ubbo Emmius in his description of old Greece calls both of them oppidula duo cum duobus praeclaris portubus in ora utriusq maris but withall adds that they were duo urbis emporia the two Marts of Corinth therefore in probability because of the great Merchandise of that City they were much frequented Cenchrea was about twelve furlongs distance from Corinth Where Pareus conjectures the place of the meeting of the Church of Corinth was because of the troubles they met with in the City and therefore they retired thither for greater conveniency and privacy which conjecture will appear not to be altogether improbable when we consider the furious opposition made by the Iews against the Christians at Corinth Acts 18. 12. and withall how usual it was both for Jews and Christians to have their place of meeting at a distance from the City As Acts 16. 13. They went out from Philippi to the River side where there was a Proseucha or a place of prayer where the Iews of Philippi accustomed to meet According to this interpretation the Church at Cenchrea is nothing else but the Church of Corinth there assembling as the Reformed Church at Paris hath their meeting place at Charenton which might be called the Church of Charenton from their publick Assemblies there but the Church of Paris from the Residence of the chief Officers and people in that City So the Church of Corinth might be called the Church at Cenchrea upon the same account there being no evidence at all of any setled Government there at Cenchrea distinct from that at Corinth So that this place which is the only one brought against that position I have laid down hath no force at all against it I conclude then that Churches and Cities were originally of equal extent and that the formal constitution of a Church lyes not in their capacity of assembling in one place but acting as a society of Christians imbodyed together in one City having Officers and Rulers among themselves equally respecting the whole number of Believers Which leads to the second thing the way and manner then used for the modelling the government of these Churches Which may be considered in a double period of time either before several Congregations in Churches were setled or after those we now call Parishes were divided First before distinct Congregations were setled and this as far as I can find was not only during the Apostles times but for a competent time after generally during the persecution of Churches For we must distinguish between such a number of Believers as could not conveniently assemble in one place and the distributing of Believers into their several distinct congregations I cannot see any reason but to think that in the great Churches of Ierusalem Antioch Ephesus and the like there were more Believers then could well meet together considering the state of those times but that they were then distributed into their several 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Centuries as the Athenians and Romans divided their people i. e. into several worshipping congregations with peculiar Officers I see no reason at all for it They had no such conveniences then of setling several congregations under their particular Pastors but all the Christians in a City looked upon
third place to consider what relation these Churches in greater Cities had one to another and to the lesser Cities which were under them And here the grand question to be discussed is this Whether the Churches in greater Cities by Apostolical institution had the Government Ecclesiastical not only of the lesser Villages under them but likewise of all lesser Cities under the civil Jurisdiction of the Metropolis The affirmative is of late asserted by some persons of great renown and learning The first I find maintaining this Hypothesis of the divine right of Metropolitans is Fregevilaeus Gantius one of the Reformed Church of France who hath spent a whole Chapter in his Palma Christianâ— to that purpose and hath made use of the same Arguments which have been since improved by all the advantages which the learning of a Reverend Drâ— could add to them But because this principle manifestly destroyes the main foundation of this discourse it is here requisite to examine the grounds on which it stands that thereby it may be fully cleared whether the subordination of less Churches to greater did onely arise from the mutual association of Churches among themselves or from Apostolical appointment and institution The two pillars which the divine right of Metropolitans is built upon are these First that the Cities spoken of in the New Testament in which Churches are planted were Metropoles in the civil Sense Secondly that the Apostles did so far follow the model of the civil Government as to plant Metropolitan Churches in those Cities If either of these prove infirm the Fabrick erected upon them must needs fall and I doubt not but to make it appear that both of them are I begin with the first The notion of a Metropolis is confessed to be this A City wherein the Courts of a civill Judicature were kept by the Roman Governours under whose Jurisdiction the whole Province was contained The Cities chiefly insisted on are the seven Cities of the Lydian Asia and Philippi which is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 As for the Cities of the Proconsular Asia although the bounds and limits of it are not so clear as certainly to know whether all these Cities were comprehended under it or no Strabo telling us that Phrygia Lydia Caria and Mysia are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 very hard to be distinguished from one another it being true of all four which was said of Mysia and Phrygia 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Phrygian and Mysian Borders are distinct but it iâ— is hard to find them out For Laodicea is by Ptolomy referred to Caria Strabo and many others place it in Phrygia onely Stephanus Bizantinus placeth it in Lydia but granting all that is produced by the late most excellent Primate of Armagh in his Learned Discourse of the Proconsular Asia to prove all these seven Cities to be in the bounds of this Lydian Asia yet it is far from being evident that all these Cities were Metropoles in the Civil Sense For Strabo tells us That the Romans did not divide these places by Nations â—but according to the Diocâ—sses wherein they kept their Courts and exercised Judicature These Cities wherein the Courts of Judicature were kept were the Metropoles and no other Of five of them Laodicea Smyrna Sardis Ephesus and Pergamus Pliny saith that the Conventus the Civil Courts were kept in them and they had Jurisdiction over the other places by him mentioned but for the other two Thyatira and Philadelphia Philadelphia is expresly mentioned as one of those Cities which was under the jurisdictio Sardiana so far was it from being a Metropoles of its self and Thyatira mentioned as one of the ordinary Cities without any addition of Honour at all to it And for Philadelphia it was so â—ar unlikely to be a Metropolis that Strabo tells us it was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 very subject to Earth-quakes and therefore had very few inhabitants those that â—â—â— live most part in the fields where they have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a very rich soil but Strabo for all that wonders at the boldness of the men that durst to venture their lives there and most of all admires what was in those mens heads who first built a City there Is it then any wayes probable that this should be chosen for a Metropolis in such an abundance of fair and rich Cities as lay thereabout But a Salvo is found out for Plinyes not mentioning them as Metropoles because the addition of these two mother Cities seemeth to have been made when Vespasian added those many new Provinces to the old Government which Suâ—tonius speaks of but this Salvo doth not reach the sore For first Pliny wrote his natural History not in the beginning but toward the latter end of the Empire of Flavius Vespasianus when Titus had been six times Consul â—s he himself saith in his Preface therefore if there had been any such change Pliny would have mentioned it Secondly the Provinces added by Vespasian are expresly set down by Suâ—â—oniuâ— viz. Achaia Lysia Rhodus Byzantium Samos Thracia Cilivia Comagena not the least mention of the Lydian or Procoâ—sular Asia or any alteration made in the Metropolis there But yet there is a further attempt made to make Philadelphia a Metropolis which is from a subscription of Eustathius in the Council of Constantinople sub Menna Act 5. who calls himself the Bishop of the Metropolis of Philadelphia but what validity there is in such a subscription in the time of the fifth Century to prove a Metropolis in the first lâ—t any one judge that doth but consider how common â— thing it was to alter Metropoles especially after the new disposition of the Roman Empire by Constantinâ— But if we do stand to the Notitiâ— to determine this controversie which are certainly more to be valued then a single subscription the Metropolitanship of these Cities of the Lydian Asia will be irrecoverably overthrown For in the old Notitia taken out of the Vatican MS. and set forth with the rest by Caroâ—â—â—â— Sancto-Paulo in his Appendix to his Geographia sacra Ephesus is made the Metropolis of the Province of Asia Sardis of Lydia Laodicea of Phrygia Capatiana as it is there written for Pacatiana but Pergamus placed in the Province of Caesarla Cappadocia Philadelphia under Sardis with Thyatyra In the Notitia attributed to Hierâ—clâ—s under the Metropolis of Ephesus is placed Smyrna and Pergamuâ— under Sardiâ— Thyatyra and Philadelphia so likewise in the Notitia of the French Kings Library So that neither in the Civil noâ— Ecclesiastical sense can we find these seven Cities to be all Metropoles We therefore observe St. Pauls course and leaving Asia we come into Macedonia where we are told that Philippi was the Metropolis of Macedonia I know not whether with greater incongruity to the Civil or Ecclesiastical sense in â—oth which I doubt not but to make it appear that Philippi was not the
Metropolis of Macedonia and therefore the Bishops there mentioned could not be the Bishops of the several Cities under the jurisdiction of Philippi but must be understood of the Bishops resident in that City We begin with it in the Civil sense which is the foundation of the other It is confessed not to have been a Metropolis during its being called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it being by Pausanias called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 By Theophylact out of an old Geographer as it is supposed it is said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and is it not very improbable that so small a City as it is acknowledged to be by Dio and others should be the Metropolis of Macedonia where were at least one hundred and fifty Cities as Pliny and Pomponius Mela tell us by boâ—h whom Philippi is plâ—ced in Thracia and not in Macedonia But two arguments are brought to prove Philippi to have been a Metropolis the first is from St. Luke calling it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Acts 16. 12. The first City of that Part of Macedonia but rendred by the learned Doctor the prime City of the province of Macedonia but it would be worth knowing where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in all the Notitiae of the Roman Empire was translated a Province and it is evident that Luke calls it the first City not ratione dignitatis but ratione 〈◊〉 in regard of its scituation and not its dignity So Camerarius understands Luke hanc esse primam coloniam paâ—tis seu Plagae Macedonicae nimirum a Thracia vicinia iter in Macedoniam ordiens It is the first City of that part of Macedonia when one goes from Thracia into it And so it appears by Dio describing the scituation of Philippi that it was the next town to Neapolis only the Mountain Symbolon comeing between them and Neapolis being upon the shore and Philippi built up in the plain near the Mountain Pangaeus where Brutus and Cassius incamped themselves its being then the first City of entrance into Macedonia proves no more that it was the Metropolis of Macodonia then that Calice is of France or Dover of England But it is further pleaded that Philippi was a Colonie and therefore it is most probable that the seat of the Roman Judicature was there But to this I answer first that Philippi was not the only Colonie in Macedonia for Pliny reckons up Cassandria Paria and others for which we must understand that Macedonia was long since made a Province by Paulus and in the division of the Roman Provinces by Augustus Strabo reckons it with Illyricum among the Provinces belonging to the Roman people and Senate and so likewise doth Dio. But it appears by Suetonius that Tiberius according to the custom of the Roman Emperours in the danger of War in the Provinces took it into his own hands but it was reâ—urned by Claudius to the Senatâ— again together with Achaia thence Dio speaking of Macedonia in the time of Tiberius saith it was governed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is by those who were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the praefecti Casaris such as were sent by the Emperour to be his Presidents in the provinces the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were the Proconsuli who were chosen by lot after their Consulship into the several Provinces and therefore Dio expresseth Claudius his returning Macedonia into the Senates hands by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he put it to the choyce of the Senate again Now Macedonia having been thus long a Province oâ— the Roman Empire what probability is there because Philippi was a Colonie therefore it must be the Metropolis of Macedonia Secondly We find not the least evidence either in Scripture or elsewhere that the Proconsul of Macedonia had his residence at Philippi yea we have some evidence against it out of Scripture Acts 16 20 22. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and brought them to the Magistrates if there had been the Tribunal of a Proconsul here we should certainly have had it mentâ—oned as Gallio Proconsul of Achaia is mentioned in a like case at Corinth Acts 18. 12. Two sorts of Magistrates are here expressed the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which seem to be the Rulers of the City the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be the Duumviri of the Colonie or else the Deputies of the Proconsul residing there but I incline rather to the former 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being only a Duumvir but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a Praetor as Heinsius observes from the Glossary of H. Stephen For every Colonie had a Duumvirate to rule it answering to the Consuls and Praetors at Rome But all this might have been spared when we consider how evident it is that Thessalonica was the Metropolis of Macedonia as appears by Antipater in the Greek Epigram 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And the Praefectus prâ—torio Illyâ—ici had 〈…〉 dence aâ— Thâ—ssalonica as Theodoreâ— tells us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Thâ—ssalonica was a great populous City where the Leiutenant of Illyricum did reside and so in probability did the Viâ—arius Macedonia It is called the Metropolis of Macedonia likewise by Socrâ—â—â—s and in the Ecclesiastical sense it is so called by Aetius the Bishop thereof in the Council of Sardicaâ— and Carolus à Sancto Paulo thinks it was not only the Metropolis of the Province of Macedonia but of the whole Diocèâ—s which in the East was much larger then the Province I suppose he means that which answered to the Vâ—carius Macedoniae And thence in the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon the subscription of the Bishop of Thâ—ssalonicâ— waâ— next to the Patriarchs But for Philippi the same Author acknowledgeth it not to have been a Metropolitan Church in the first six Centuries but after that Macedonia was divided into prima and secunda which was after the divâ—sion of it in the Empire into prima and salutaris then Philippi came to have the honorary Title of a Metropolitan although in Hierocles his Notitia Philippi is placed as the twenty first City under the Metropoles of Thâ—ssalonica So much to evidence the weakness of the first pillar viz. that these Cities were Metropoles in the civil sense and this being taken away the other falls of its self for if the Apostles did model the Ecclesiastical Government according to the Civil then Metropolitan Churches were planted only in Metropolitan Cities and these being cleared not to have been the latter it is evident they were not the former But however let us see what evidence is brought of such a subordination of all other Churches to the Metropolitans by the institution of the Apostles The only evidence produced out of Scripture for such a subordination and dependance of the Churches of lesser Cities upon the greater is from Actâ— 16. 1 4 compared with Acts 15. 23. the argument runs thus The
Rome distinct from the Citie and the Church in it For in that sense 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is opposed to living in the City and so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are distinct from the Citizens as in Thucydides and others but I believe no instance can possibly be produced wherein 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 taken in that sense doth comprehend in it both City and Country But being taken in the former sense it was first applyed to the whole Church of the City but when the Church of the City did spread it self into the Countrey then the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 comprehended the Christians both in City and Countrey adjoyning to it Which leads me to the second step of Christian Churches when Churches took in the Villages and Territories adjoyning to the Cities For which we must understand that the ground of the subordination of the Villages and Territories about did primarily arise from hence that the Gospel was spread abroad from the several Cities into the Countreys about The Apostles themselves preachedmost as we read in Scripture in the Cities because of the great resort of people thither there they planted Churches and setled the Government of them in an Ecclesiastical Senate which not only took care for the government of Churches already constituted but for the gathering more Now the persons who were employed in the conversion of the adjacent Territories being of the Clergy of the City the persons by them converted were adjoyned to the Church of the City and all the affairs of those lesser Churches were at first determined by the Governours of the City Afterwards when these Churches encreased and had peculiar Officers set over them by the Senate of the City-church although these did rule and govern their flock yet it alwayes was with a subordination to and dependance upon the government of the City-church So that by this means he that was President of the Senate in the City did likewise superintend all the Churches planted in the adjoyning Territories which was the original of that which the Greeks call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Latins the Diocess of the Bishop The Church where the Bishop was peculiarly resident with the Clergy was called Matrix Ecclesia and Cathedra principaliâ— as the several Parishes which at first were divided according to the several regions of the City were called Tituli and those planted in the Territories about the City called Paroeciae when they were applyed to the Presbyters but when to the Bishop it noted a Diocess those that were planted in these country-parishes were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the Greeks and by the Latins Presbyteri regionarii conregionales forastici ruriâ— agrorum Presbyteri from whom the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were distinct as evidently appears by the thirteenth Canon of the Council of Neocaesarea where the countrey Presbyters are forbidden to administer the Lords Supper in the presence of the Bishop on the Presbyters of the City but the Chorepiscopi were allowed to do it Salmasiuâ— thinks these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were so called as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Episcopi villani such as were only Presbyters and were set over the Churches in Villages but though they were originally Presbyters yet they were â—aised to some higher authority over the rest of the Presbyters and the original of them seems to be that when Churches were so much multiplyed in the Countreys adjacent to the Cities that the Bishop in his own person could not be present to oversee the actions and carriages of the several Presbyters of the countrey Churches then they ordained some of the fittest in their several Dioceses to super intend the several Presbyters lying remore from the City from which office of theirs they were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because they did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 go about and visit the several Churches This is the account given of them by Beza and Blondel as well as others All those several places that were converted to the saith by the assistance of the Presbyters of the City did all make but one Church with the City Whereof we have this twofold evidence First from the Eulogiâ— which were at first parcels of the bread consecrated for the Lords Supper which were sent by the Deacons or Acâ—luthi to those that were absent in token of their communion in the same Church Iustin Martyr is the first who acquaints us with this custome of the Church After saith he the President of the Assembly hath consecrated the bread and wine the Deacons stand ready to distribute it to every one person 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and carry it to those that are absent Damascus attributes the beginning of this custome to Miltiades Bishop of Rome Hic fecit ut Oblationes consecratâ— per Ecclesias ex consecratione Episcopi dirigerentur quod declaratur fermentum So Innocentius ad Decentium De fermento verò quod die Dominica per titulos mittimus c. ut se à nostra communione maxime illa die non judicent separaâ—osâ— Whereby it appears to have been the custome of Rome and other places to send from the Cathedral Church the bread consecrated to the several parish-Churches to note their joint-communion in the faith of the Gospel Neither was it sent only to the several tituli in the City but to the Villages round about as appears by the Question propounded by Dâ—centius although at Rome it seems they sent it only to the Churches within the City as appears by the answer of Innocentius but Albaspinus takes it for granted as a general custome upon some set-dayes to send these Eulogiâ— through the whole Diocess Nam cum per vicos agros sparsi diffusâ— ex â—adem non pâ—ssint sumere communione cuperentque sâ—mper union is Christianâ— Christi corporis speciem quam pâ—ssint maximam râ—tinere solâ—â—nissimis diâ—bus festivis ex matrice per parochias bene dictus mitâ—ebatur panis ex â—ujus pâ—rceptione communitas quae inter omnes fideles â—jusdem Dâ—oecesis intercedere debet intelligebatur repraesentabatur Surely then the Diocesses were not very large iâ— all the several parishes could communicate on the same day with what was sent from the Cathedral Church Afterwards they sent not part of the bread of the Lords-supper but some other in Analogy to that to denote their mutual contesseration in the saith and communion in the same Church Secondly It appears that still they were of the same Church by the presence of the Clergy of the Countrey or the choyce of the Bishop of the City and at Ordinations and in Councils So at the choyce of Boniface Relictis singuli titulis suis Presbyteri omnes aderunt qui voluntatem suam hoc est Dâ—i judicium proloquantur whereby it is evident that all the Clergy had their voyces in the choyce of the Bishop And therefore Pope Lâ—o requires these things as necessary to the
ordination of a Bishop Subscriptio clericorum Honoratorum testimonium Ordinis consensus plebis and in the same chapter speaking of the choyce of the Bishop he saith it was done subscribentibus plus minus septuagintâ— Presbyteris And therefore it is observed that all the Clergy conâ—urred to the choyce even of the Bishop of Rome till after the time of that Hildebrand called Greg. 7. in whose time Popery came to Age thence Casaubon calls it Haeresin Hildebrandinam Cornelius Bishop of Rome was chosen Clericoram pene omnium testimonio and in the Council at Rome under Sylvâ—ster it is decreed that none of the Clergy should be ordained nisi cum tota adunata Ecclesia Many instances are brought from the Councils of Carthage to the same purpose which I pass over as commonly known It was accounted the matter of an accusation against Chrysostom by his enemies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that he ordained without the Council and assistance of his Clergy The pâ—esence of the Clergy at Councils hath been already shewed Thus we see how when the Church of the City was enlarged into the Countrey the power of the Governours of the Churches in the City was extended with it The next step observable in the Churches encrease was when several of these Churches lying together in one Province did associate one with another The Primitive Church had a great eye to the preserving unity among all the members of it and thence they kept so strict a correspondency among the several Bishops in the Commercium Formatarum the formula of writing which to prevent deceit may be seen in Iustellus his Notes on the Codex Canonum Ecclesiae Africanae and for a maintaining of nearer correspondency among the Bishops themselves of a Province it was agreed among themselves for the better carrying on of their common work to call a Provincial Synod twice every year to debate all causes of concernment there among themselves and to agree upon such wayes as might most conduce to the advancing the common interest of Christianity Of these Tertullian speaks Aguntur praeceptâ— per Gracias illas certis in locis Concilia ex universis Ecclesâ—is per quae altiora quaeque in communi tractantur ipsa repraesentatio nominis Christiani magna vâ—neratione celebratur Of these the thirty eighth Canon Apostolical as it is called expresly speaks which Canons though not of authority sufficient to ground any right upon may yet be allowed the place of a Testimony of the practice of the Primitive Church especially towards the third Century 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Twice a year a Synod of Bishops was to be kept for discussing matters of faith and resolving matters of practice To the same purpose the Council of Antioch A. D. 343 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To these Councils the Presbyters and Deacons came as appears by that Canon of the Council of Antioch and in the seventh Canon of the Nicene Council by Alphon us Pisanus the same custome is decâ—eed but no such thing occurrs in the Codex Canonum either of Tilius or Iustellus his Edition and the Arabick ediâ—â—â—â— of that Council is conceived to have been compiled above four hundred years after the Council set But however we see evidence enough of this practice of celebrating Provincial Synods twice a year now in the assembling of these Bishops together for mutual counsel in their affairs there was a necessity of some order to be observed There was no difference as to the power of the Bishops themselves who had all equal authority in their several Churches and none over one another For Episcopatus unus â—st cujus â— singulis in solidum pars tenetur as Cyprian speaks and as Ierome Ubicunq Episcopus fuerit sive Romae sive Eugubii sive Constantinopoli sive Râ—egii sive Alexandriae sive Tanis ejusdem est meriti ejusdem est Sacerdotii Potentia divitiarum paupertatis humilitas vel sublimiorem vel inferiorem Episcopum non facit Caterum omnes Apostolorum successores sunt There being then no difference between them no man calling himself Episcopum Episcoporum as Cyprian elsewhere speaks some other way must be found out to preserve order among them and to moderate the affairs of the Councils and therefore it was determined in the Council of Antioch that he that was the Bishop of the Metropolis should have the honour of Metropolitan among the Bishops 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because of the great confluence of people to that City therefore he should have the prâ—heminence above the rest We see how far they are from attributing any Divine Right to Metropolitaus and therefore the rights of Metropolitans are called by the sixth Canon of the Nicene Council 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which had been a dishonourable introduction for the Metropolitan Rights had they thought them grounded upon Apostolical institution Nothing more evident in antiquity then the honour of Metropolitans depending upon their Sees thence when any Cities were raised by the Emperour to the honour of Metropoles their Bishop became a Metropolitan as is most evident in Iustiniana prima and for it there are Canons in the Councils decreeing it but of this more afterwards The chief Bishop of Africa was only called primae sedis Episcop 〈…〉 thence we have a Canon in the Codex Ecclesiae African◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That the Bishop of the chief See should not be called the Exarch of the Priests or chief Priest or any thing of like nature but only the Bishop of the chief seat Therefore it hath been well observed that the African Churches did retain longest the Primitive simplicity and humility among them and when the voyce was said to be heard in the Church upon the flowing in of riches Hodie venenum effusum est in Ecclesiam by the working of which poyson the spirits of the Prelates began to swell with pride and ambition as is too evident in Church History only Africa escaped the infection most and resisted the tyrannical incroachments of the Roman Bishop with the greatest magnanimity and courage as may be seen by the excellent Epistle of the Council of Carthage to Boniface Bishop of Rome in the Codex Ecclesiae Africanae So thaâ— however Africa hath been alwayes fruitfull of Monsters yet in that ambitious age it had no other wonder but only this that it should escape so free from that typhus saecularis as they then called it that monstrous itch of pride and ambition From whence we may well rise to the last step of the power of the Church which was after the Empire grew Christian and many Provinces did associate together then the honour and power of Patriarchs came upon the stage And now began the whole Christian world to be the Cock pitt wherein the two great Prelates of Rome and Constantinople strive with their greatest force for mastery of one another and the whole world
with them as may be seen in the actions of Paschasinus the Roman Legat in the Council of Chalcedon From whence forward the great Leviâ—than by his tumbling in the waves endeavoured to get the Dominion of all into his hands but God hath at last put a hook into his nostrils and raised up the great instruments of Reformation who like the Sword fish have so pierced into his bowels that by his tumbling he may only hasten his approaching ruine and give the Church every day more hopes of seeing its self freed from the tyranny of an Uâ—urped power By this Scheme and draught now of the increase of the Churches power nothing can be more evident then that it rise not from any divine institution but only from positive Ecclesiastical Laws made according to the several states and conditions wherein the Church was which as it gradually grew up so waâ— the power of the Church by mutual consent fitted to the state of the Church in its several ages Which was the fiâ—st argument that the Primitive Church did not conceive its self bound to observe any one unalterable form of Government This being the chief the rest that follow will sooner be dispatched The second is from the great varieties as to Government which were in several Churches What comes from divine right is observed unalterably in one uniform constant tenour but what we find so much diversified according to several places we may have ground to look on only as an Ecclesiastical constitution which was followed by every Church as it judged convenient Now as to Church Government we may find some Churches without Bishops for a long time some but with one Bishop in a whole Nation many Cities without any where Bishops were common many Churches discontinue Bishops for a great while where they had been no certain rule observed for modelling their Dâ—ocesses where they were still continued Will not all these things make it seem very improbable that it should be an Apostolical institution that no Church should be without a Bishop First then some whole Nations seem to have been without any Bishops at all if we may believe their own Historians So if we may believe the great Antiquaries of the Church of Scotland that Church was governed by their Culdei as they called their Presbyters without any Bishop over them for a long time Iohannes Maior speaks of their instruction in the faith per Sacerdotes Monachos sine Episcopis Scoti in fide eruditi but least that should be interpreted only of theâ—r conversion Iohannes Fordònus is clear and full to their government from the time of their conversion about A. D 263. to the coming of Palladius A. D. 430. that they were only governed by Presbyters and Monks Ante Palladii adventum habebant Scoti fidei Dâ—ctores ac Sacramentorum Ministratores Presbyteros solunmodo vel Monachos ritum sequentes Ecclesiae Primitivae So much mistaken was that learned man who saith That neither Beda nor any other affirms that the Scots were formerly ruled by a Presbyterie or so much as that they had any Presbyter among them Neither is it any wayes sufficient to say that these Presbyters did derive their authority from some Bishops for however we see here a Church governed without such or if they had any they were only chosen from their Culdei much after the custom of the Church of Alexandria as Hector Boethiuâ— doth imply And if we believe Philostorgius the Gothick Churches were planted and governed by Presbyters for above seventy years for so long it was from their first conversion to the time of Ulphilas whom he makes their first Bishop And great probability there is that where Churches were planted by Presbyters as the Church of France by Andochius and Benignus that afterwards upon the encrease of Churches and Presbyters to rule them they did from among themselves choose one to be as the Bishop over them as Pothinus was at Lyons For we nowhere read in those early plantations of Churches that where there were Presbyters already they sent to other Churches to derive Episcopâ—l ordination from them Now for whole Nations having but one Bishop we have the testimony of Sozomen that in Scythia which by the Romans was called Masia inferior 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Although there were many Cities they had but one Bishop The like Godignus relates of the Abâ—ssine Churches Though their Territories be of vast extent there is but only one Bishop in all those Dominions who is the Bishop of Abuna And where Bishops were most common it is evident they looked not on it as an Apostolical rule for every City to have a Bishop which it must have if it was an Apostolical institution for the Church to follow the civil Government Theodoret mentions 800 Churches under his charge in whose Diâ—cess Ptolomy placeth many other Cities of note besides Cirus as Ariseria Regia Ruba Heraclea c. In the Province of Tripoly he reckons nine Cities which had but five Bishops as appears by the Notitia Ecclesiae Africanae In Thracia every Bishop had several Cities under hâ—m The Bishop of Heraclea that and Panion the Bishop of Byze had it and Arcadiapolis of Coela had it and Callipolis Sabsadia had it and Aphrodisias It is needless to produce more instances of this nature either ancient or modern they being so common and obvious But further we find Bishops discontinued for a long time in the greatest Churches For if there be no Church without a Bishop where was the Church of Rome when from the Martyrdome of Fabian and the banishment of Lucius the Church was governed only by the Clergy So the Church of Carthage when Cyprian was banished the Church of the East when Meletius of Antioeh Eusebius Samosatenus Pelagius of Laodicea and the rest of the Orthodox Bishops were banished for ten years space and Flavianus and Diodorus two Presbyters ruled the Church of Antioch the mean while The Church of Carthage was twenty four years without a Bishop in the time of Hunerik King of the Vandals and when it was offered them that they might have a Bishop upon admitting the Arrians to a free exercise of their Religion among them their answer was upon those terms Ecclesia Episcopum non delictatur habere and Balsamon speaking of the Christian Churches in the East determines it neither safe nor necessary in their present state to have Bishops set up over them And lastly for their Diocesses it is evident there was no certain Rule for modelling them In some places they were far less then in others Generally in the primitive and Eastern Churches they were very small and little as far more convenient for the end of them in the government of the Churches under the Bishops charge it being observed out of Walafridus Strabo by a learned man Fertur in Orientis partibus per singulas urbes praefecturas singulas
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Sections of the Prophets answerable to those of the Law which Elias Levita 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 of 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 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 for 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 its self there were foure hundred and eighty one Synagogues which they ridiculously observe by their Gematry from the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 used Isa. 1. 20. whose numeral Letters being put together amount to that Number but ◠clearer Evidence of the multitude of Synagogues is our Saviours so often appearing in them and so likewise the Apostles when they went abroad to preach the Gospel we find in most 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 Western 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 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 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 the 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which in brief is that the Proseuchae were the Schools of all Religion and Learning by which words he seems to confound not onely the Synagogue and the Proseucha together but the Synagogue and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 taught having withdrawn himself from the Synagogue And so sometimes the Proseuchae were distinguished from the Synagogues as Grotius himself elsewhere acknowledeth viz either 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 to content themselves with a place remote from the City either by some River as that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 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 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 indeed 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 there must be 120. inhabitants where there was to be a Sanhedrin of twenty three is this There must be twenty three to mà ke up the Sanhedrin and three orders of twenty three who sat in a hemicycle under the Sanhedrin in the same Form as they sat 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 decem filii hominis vacantes ab omni opere ut parati sint 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 domui Synagogae manè vesperi and there adds that every City though it be wall'd where ten such persons are
wanting is looked on onely 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 the 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 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 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 onely to the Presbyters among the Jewes who were thereby made capable of being members of the Sanhedrin thence it was called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 of 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 prohibited it by an Edict that whosoever should ordain another should forfeit his life and so every one that was so ordained Thence the Jewes tell us that R. Iehuda Ben Baba is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 â—it for any Court of Judicature but there was another Form of Ordination which was more particular and restrained a Form limiting the general power either to pecuniary Cases or criminal or onely 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 onely in forâ— conscientiae of the lawfulness and unlawfulness of things propounded to them This they called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 binds that is judgeth a thing unlawful another 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 looseth as that of Schammai that is judgeth it lawful and free to be done Now the persons thus ordained with this power onely 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where there was such a one distinct from the Synagogue But 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 severall 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 from him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Egypt to whose Office it belonged to ordain in all the Synagogues in Egypt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 twelve 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may possibly mean no more then sitting on one of the lower seats belonging to those who were yet in their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Minority where they sat at the feet of their Teachers which was not within the Temple its self but as Arias Montanus 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 onely all publick civil Offices were confer'd by imposition of hands Sed in Archisynagogis senioribus Synagogae idem observatum unde mos 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ad Christianos transiit But likewise all the Rulers and Elders of the Synagogue were so ordained from whence the custome was translated into Christianity of which afterwards Thus now we have cleared