done. Where God hath appointed an order, when and where and by whom Chriftians fhould celebrate their affemblies, is not to be found in Scripture further then the Apostles rule, 1. Cor. xiv. 40. Let all things be done decently and in order. It feemeth he argueth from the pattern of the Leviticall Priesthood: for fo it followeth, p. 53. Ta zap asxepsï i♪aı nesteggias Sesourúas èsoi, &c. To the high Prieft, faith he, are assigned his proper fervices. Which further appeareth, when he urgeth the example of their facrifices that were offered before the Temple, being first visited a άpχερέως καὶ τῶν προειρημλύων λειτεργών, Ρ. 54 But the Presbyters of that Chriftian Church he exhorteth with these words, Εκαςος ὑμῶν, ἀδελφοὶ, ἐν τῷ ἰδίῳ τάγματι ευχαριςείτω τῷ Θεῷ, ἐν ἀγαθῇ συνειδήσει ὑπάρ χων, μὴ παρεκβαίνων τὸν ὡρισμλύον τῆς λειζεργίας αν z navova, Brethren, faith he, let every one of you give thanks to God (that is, Cele Celebrate the Eucharift, in his language) in his own order, being in a good confcience, not stepping out of the fet rule of his Miniftery. Perhaps his meaning is,that they should celebrate by turns. Howfoever here is my reafon that there was then no Bishop there, because then there could not have been fo much debate about the order in celebrating the affemblies of Chriftians, which, as fhall be fhewed afterwards, were not to be held but upon appointment of the Bishop, with advice of the Presbyters, being a mark of fchifme to affemble otherwise. And if this be not enough, there is another to fecond it. Whatsoever may be argued from the diffenfions at Corinth, one saying, I am of Paul, another, I am of Cephas, to fhew that there was no Bishop there when the Apostle writ this, and in his abfence, ftill continueth in force at the time of writing Clemens his Epiftle: The whole whole fubject whereof is, to quell fuch another diffenfion as this, but onely that it was not under fuch colourable names, of Paul and Cephas and Apollos, as he complaineth, but (which is remarkable to prove my intent) was (as he faith p. 62.) a mere faction, for the love of one or two perfons, against the Presbyters; no Bishop bearing any part either at one end or other of it. Neither is it marvel that this Church fhould be ftill without a Bishop for fome ten or twentie years perhaps after the death of the Apostle, fo many companions of the Apostles being then alive, Clemens at Rome, Titus in Crete, Timothy at Ephefus, Dionyfius at Athens, others elsewhere, to furnish whatsoever affiftance they had received from the Apostle during his time, no otherwife then did Timo-, thy and Titus to thofe Churches wherein they had planted Presbyteries, E : ries, before they had Bishops. And this must be the answer, if any man ask the question howBishops came to be propagated through all Churches; the answer must be, They were made in due time by the heads of neighbouring Churches which we fhall difcern anon, when we come to fpeak of the course held from the beginning in the choice and conftitution of Bishops. And by the practice of the Church it should seem the aim was afarre off to propagate Bifhops according to the first practice of the Apostles. For as they planted Presbyteries to govern Mother-Churches in Mother-Cities, fo when it became questionable,which Churches fhould have Bishops and which not,the matter was regulated according to the greatneffe of Cities, or the multitude. of Presbyters which the fervice of the Churches in them required, whereof the Bishops were to be heads. And there therefore in the Councel of Sardica Can. vi. it is provided, that there fhould be no Bifhop in towns of fmall cities where one Presbyter might ferve; but in those places where Bishops were of old time, or if a place became fo populous that it might de serve to have a Bishop; that is, either in Cities that had been so populous of old time as to have Bishops, or which should afterwards become fo populous. But the xvii. Canon of the Chalcedon Councel providing against innovation in Dioceses, taketh order nevertheleffe,that when a place is promoted by the Emperourto be a Citie, the form of the Church fhall go along with the form of the Common-wealth, that is, it fhall have Bishop, and his Diocese the territo ry of that Citie. There is here a difference in the particular, and yet the fame generall ground of both Canons, the practice of the Apostles, |