only in matters of Judicature, efpecially where a Bishop was tried the Sentence was given by the Bishops folely, and they had no more than a confultive or approving Voice. That after this time they were frequently admitted to Vote in Provincial Councils, and particularly in this Realm from the firft Plantation of Christianity amongst us. So that the thing it felf plainly appears to be no Novelty, and was undoubtedly practifed before the Clergy were called to give Money in Convocation. And now let us hear what Objections are made to it.

First it is objected that it is not evidently to be concluded from the Text Act. 15. 6. that Presbyters,as we now understand that word to denote an Order below Bishops or the second Order of the Clergy did come together with the Apostles to confider of the Matter there to be determined. They are indeed called ПgesCurego Presbyters or Elders as it is in our Translation, but that they were properly fuch as we now call Presbyters is Difputable. Dr. Hammond calls them in his Paraphrafe, The Bishops of Judea. (a) Bishop Bilfon fays, The (4) Perpet, Gov. Scruple is, what kind of Presbyters they were. Lay-of Chrift's Ch. Presbyters I read of none, and therefore can admit none to be of that Council. Befides fuch of the Seventy and fuch other Prophets as affifted James in the Regiment of the Church of Jerufalem, are in all Reafon expreffed by that name, For fince the whole Church there is divided into Apoftles, Presbyters and Brethren; the Helpers and Coadjutors of the Apostles, were they Prophets or Evangelifts that either came with Paul and Barnabas from Antioch, or were commorant with James and the rest at Jerufalem must be contained in the name of Presbyters,

Z 2

p. 390.

(4) Not. on Act. 11. 30.

Presbyters. And perhaps it is the least probable opinion of any other that ПgesCureço: Presbyters is there to be understood precisely of the fecond Order of Ecclefiafticks in the later Senfe of the word which afterwards obtained. This I think is the full of this Objection, and I shall confider what may be replied to it.

Now as to what Dr. Hammond fays, he is perfectly fingular in his Opinion: Many indeed before him, and many fince his time have maintained, and I think upon good Grounds, that in the Scripture Language Bishop and Presbyter are but two names for the fame Office; but I conceive he is the only one (at least there was none before him) that has maintained (b) that Bishop and Presbyter in the Scripture times denoted thofe only that were of the first or highest Order whom we now call Bishops, and that there is no Evidence that any of the Second Order were inftituted in the Scripture times. So that according to him the Order of Presbyters is but of humane Inftitution, and therefore, as the Presbyterians fay, we can derive but two Orders from the Holy Scripture, Bishops Or Presbyters, and Deacons: And indeed I do not fee why his Hypothesis may not ferve the Turn of the Presbyterians as well as their own. They hold that there is. but two Orders of Apoftolical Inftitution, fo does he; only here lies the difference, They fay that the Church after the Apostles Days fet up an Order above the Bishops or Presbyters which we read of in Scripture, and he fays that they Inftituted an Order below em. But our Church has plainly determined that they are both in the wrong, faying (c) that it is evident to all Men diligently reading the Form &c. of Holy Scripture and ancient Authors, that from the

(c) Preface to

Bishops, Priefts and Deacons.

Apoftles

Apoftles time there have been thefe Orders of Minifters in Chrift's Church; Bishops, Priefts and Deacons. Obferve the Church fays it is as well evident from the Scriptures as from ancient Authors, not that there have been but two Orders Bishops and Deacons, or Pricfts and Deacons, but these Orders Bifhops, Priests and Deacons And therefore whofoever excludes any of them from being plainly mentioned in the Scriptures evidently overthrows the Eftablished Doctrine of our Church. And I hope I have (d) already fufficiently proved that all (4) Supr. Ch. 4. these three Orders were inftituted in the Scripture times, and that those of the first or highest Order were then called Apostles, thofe of the middle or fecond Order were promifcuously called Bishops or Presbyters, and thofe of the third or lowest Order were then called as now Deacons: That in the next Age those of the highest Order humbly abstained from. the name Apostles, and were called Bishops, and thofe of the fecond Order, who till then had been indifferently called either Bishops or Presbyters were called only by the name Presbyters, and for this I truft I have produced very subftantial Proofs: And if need were could eafily fhew that all Dr. Hammonds Proofs are nothing to his purpofe. And therefore if they were as Bishop Bilfon fays they must be, the Helpers and Coadjutors of the Apostles, whether they were Prophets or Evangelifts if they were of an Order below the Apoftles (as fure they were, elfe they had not been diftinguished from them) they must be Presbyters properly fo called, in the modern acceptation of that Word, unless any one will fay they were but Deacons, for Philip the Evangelift we (e) read (2) A&t. 21. 8. Z 3

was

Acts 15. 21

And therefore if

was no more.

Deacons could fit in Synod with the Apoftles, much rather might Priests: So that upon the whole Matter, I cannot fee any thing like an Argument to prove that the Elders which met together with the Apostles to confider concerning Circumcifion were not the fame whom we now call Presbyters. Indeed I cannot recollect that the Word IerCiT Presbyters, when mentioned with regard to the Christian Church is any where used in the Acts of the Apostles or the Epiftles where it does not plainly feem to denote an Order of the Clergy below the Apoftles, which is all that I contend for in this Place.

Secondly, It is objected that this Apoftolical Council, if we make it a Pattern for thofe which were to fucceed it, proves too much, because the Synodical Epiftle is infcribed in the Name of the Brethren, as well as the Apostles and Elders, and fome are ready to lay hold of that handle and affert that the Lay-Brethren have a joynt Authority with the Ecclefiafticks in ChurchMatters.

But it is to be confidered that the Text it felf makes a plain diftinction between the Bufinefs which the Apoftles and Elders had in this Aflembly, and what the Brethren had to do there. It is plain from thence, that only the Apoftles and Elders met to determine Matters, but the Brethren were also admitted to fee and hear, that they might be fatisfied that the Determination paffed upon good Grounds, and on fufficient Reafon and Evidence, and therefore more readily fubmit to the decifion. This I fay is evident from the Text, for * Paul and Barnabas with fome others were fent from An

tioch to ferufalem to put the Question to the Apoftles and Elders. Then it is faid the A-+ Ves 6, 7. poftles and Elders came together for to confider of this Matter. And when there had been much difputing, Peter rofe up, &c. Here it is plain was a long debate, but it was only between the Apostles and Elders, for the Question was put only to them, and only they came together to confider of the Matter. The Multitude had nothing to do but to fee and hear for their own fuller Satisfaction. It is alfo evident that the Elders debated as well as the Apostles, for the Text fays that the Question was put to them as well as to the Apostles, and they as well as the Apostles came to confider of the Matter: Befides, it is faid there was much Difputing. Now whence fhould these Difputes arife but from the Elders? Who, not being all of them (as we may reasonably fuppofe) divinely inspired as the Apostles were, argued ftrongly for the retaining Circumcifion, which the Apostles were fully fatisfied God defigned to abolish: And 'till the Apostles had given them Satisfaction, and brought them to confent that it was the Will of the Holy Ghoft that this Yoke should not be laid on the Gentiles, they proceeded to no Synodical Determination. And when the Apoftles and Elders had agreed upon the Matter, they then drew up their Synodical Epiftle, and put the Brethren into the Infcription of it, not that their confent was any ways neceffary to give strength to the Decree, but to fatisfie the Church of Antioch, that this was no private Determination, but a matter that had been openly difcuffed and fully debated in a publick Affembly. Or upon what account foever the Brethren are added to the Infcription of the Epi74

2