by the view of them And the first they produce is this 25. The Apostles went about ordeining Presbyters in every Church Act. 14. 23. 26. But surely this is an infirme argument Every Church signifies without question more Churches than one viz. Derbe Lystra Iconium Antioch v. 20. 21. And if in each of those one 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be supposed to be ordeined that certainly will satisfie the importunity of that Text and the mention of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elders in the plurall viz. foure Elders in those so many Churches And if because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is in the singular number they therefore thinke that those plurall Elders must be ordeined in each of those Churches This is too grosse a mistake for Scholers to be guilty of it being certaine that that is not the importance of the phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 any more than of the English Church by Church or in every Church i.e. more Elders in more Churches one in every one 27. Their next proofe is from Act. 20. 17. Paul called for the Elders of the Church of Ephesus one of these seven Churches and calls them Bishops and commits the whole government of the Church to them The like may be said of the other six Churches 28. What may be said of Ephesus I grant may be said of the other six Churches but the Text no where affirmes it of Ephesus and so the analogy will no way prove it of the rest All that the Text saith is this And from Miletus he sent to Ephesus and called the Elders of the Church This is not to say the Elders as that signifies Presbyters in our moderne notion of the one City and so Church of Ephesus but the Elders i.e. Bishops either of the Asian Church of that whole Region or at least of the Ephesine Province the neighbouring Bishops of the Churches or Cities that were under that Metropolis of Ephesus who by St. Paul's sending his summons to Ephesus the chiefe City of the one and chiefe Metropolis of the other which consequently had daily meanes of communicating intelligence to those other Cities might thus most commodiously be advertised of St. Paul's comming and provide to meet him at Miletus 29. That this is no strain'd interpretation or answer is elsewhere evidenced and may summarily appeare by these two testimonies one of Irenaeus here formerly mentioned l. 3. c. 14. ab Epheso reliquis proximis civitatibus convocatos esse that they were called from Ephesus and the rest of the neerest Cities adjoyning to it This is an expresse evidence which being allowed puts the whole matter out of question And although in a matter of fact a testimony of so credible a person that lived so neere the times being an auditour of Polycarpe the first Bishop of Smyrna and is not contradicted by any contemporary is of a competent authority and need not any other Topickes to assist it yet for the removing all possible prejudices from it and rendring it yet more indubitable I shall a little farther enlarge for the confirming of it 30. And 1. the Apostle at his meeting with them v. 18. begins in this style yee know from the first day that I came into Asia after what manner I have been with you at all seasons An addresse to them either as to the Elders of Asia indefinitely as many as could conveniently come to Miletus at that time or at least as to more than to the Elder or Elders if that could be truly pretended of one City of Asia peculiarly or exclusively to all others 31. So againe v. 25. And now behold I know that yee all among whom I have gone preaching the Kingdome of God shall see my face no more This evidently addresses the speech not onely to the inhabitants of one City but to all those as many as were then present among whom hee had gone preaching the Faith of Christ and that we know was done by him to the other Cities and not onely to that of Ephesus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in passage though not so solemnly as at Ephesus going through all the Region and preaching the Gospell to all saith Oecumenius on 2 Joh. And so t is expresly said Act. 19. 21. that after the two yeares and three moneths spent at Ephesus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he staid and spent some time in Asia And accordingly v. 26. Demetrius truely saith that not onely at Ephesus but almost throughout all Asia Paul had perswaded and turned away the people 32. Secondly then the Faith being before this time successefully propagated through all Asia and not onely in this one City of Ephesus there were without question Churches accordingly gathered and compacted in many other Cities as well as in Ephesus before this time of Paul's parting never to see them againe And not onely in the other Metropolis six more of which are owned by the Objectors Smyrna and the rest Rev. 1. but also in the lesser Cities which were not Metropoliticall and yet more especially in those Cities which were neerest Ephesus and which as belonging to that Metropolis had frequent resort thither to the Assises which were there kept Act. 19. 38. and so must be supposed to have received speciall influences from the Apostle's residing there for the space of two yeares and three moneths Act. 19. 8. 10. 33. To which purpose it must againe be remembred that as Timâ—thy is by Eusebius styled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bishop of the Province that belongs to Ephesus l. 3. c. 4. which is all one as to make that a Metropolis over other Cities and accordingly in the order of Metropoliticall Sees at the end of Codinus the Bishop of Ephesus is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Primate of all Asia so Ignatius in Traâ—an's time is by joynt consent of the antients affirmed to have written Epistles to two Churches Magnesia and Trallis which are known to be Cities under this Metropolis of Ephesus and to have named the Bishops of each Damas of the one and â—olybius of the other 34. And as there is no question among any but that Ignatius wrote such Epistles to those Churches Salmasius cites that to the Trallians expresly as the Epistle of Ignatius which certainly he would never have done if he had doubted whether ever Ignatius wrote to them and indeed all that is questioned by him and D. Blondell is but this whether the Epistles now extant under his name be genuine or no not whether Ignatius as all writers accord wrote seven Epistles of which these which we now speake of are two so there is no ground of imagining that they were of a later plantation than that which is here recorded to be wrought by St. Paul Act. 19. All Asia having then heard the Faith v. 10. and received it in a remarkable manner v. 20. and a great dore saith St. Paul being opened to him at Ephesus peculiarly which must needs have influence on the Cities next adjoyning to it in
a speciall manner 35. To this I shall adde thirdly that as Aristides saith of Ephesus that it was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the common magazine or store-house of Asia 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 their refuge for all wants so it must needs be the fittest way of conveying intelligence speedily to all the Cities of Asia especially the proximae civitates as Irenaeus said the Cities next adjoyning and so most commodious to assemble those other Bishops to Paul at Miletus and not only him or those that are supposed to have resided at Ephesus 36. And accordingly we finde in Eusebius that the Epistle of Antonius â—ius concerning the Christians which was to be communicated to all Asia 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was proclaimed or divulged at Ephesus in the common meeting of Asia as the readiest way to make it universally knowne 37. All which being premised and withall that there is no reason to imagine that St. Paul at the time of his fimall parting taking his solemne last leave of them v. 38. should not so much consider as to call for or desire to see any of the rest of his Sonnes the Governours of the Inferiour Churches to whom he had committed that numerous flock which was now so universally in such danger of Wolves save onely those of the one Church of that one City of Ephesus supposing there had been more than one there This will be a very competent confirmation of Irenaeus his testimony that indeed thus it was as he hath delivered that the Bishops of the Cities neerest adjoyning to Ephesus as many as by summons from thence could speedily be called together in all reason the Bishops of the Cities which were under that Metropolis were sent to meet the Apostle at Miletus and accordingly met him there 38. The second testimony is that maxime of the Greeke Scholiast on 1 Pet. 1. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Booke of the Acts calls the Bishops Elders which being avow'd by me in the Dissertations and cleared through all the places in the Acts they ought by all Lawes of disputing either to have endeavoured the refuting of what is there said or the proving that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elders must needs there signifie Presbyters in the moderne notion which having not here attempted to doe there is no kinde of force in what is here dictated nothing said but what had beene long since largely and clearely answered 39. Yet because in the next Chapter where this place of the Acts is viewed againe one argument I see produced in favour of their pretensions which they found in an observation of mine I shall thinke my selfe concern'd to give an account of it 40. It is this Pag. 85. If the Apostle by the Elders of the Church had meant the Bishops of the Church of all Asia he would have said not the Elders of the Church but of the Churches It is an observation made use of by one of those that makes use of this answer we are now confuting That when the Scripture speakes of Churches in Cities it alwayes useth the singular number as the Church of Jerusalem the Church of Corinth c. but when it speakes of provinces where there are many Cities then it uses the plurall number as the Churches of Judaea and the Churches of Asia Rev. 1. 11. According to this observation if the Apostle had meant of the Bishops of all Asia he would have said the Elders of the Churches whereas he calls them Elders of the Church v. 17. and so must meane the Elders of the Church of Ephesus and so meere Presbyters not Bishops 41. But herein is a manifest mistake For the observation is not made as is here suggested of Churches in Cities and Provinces that the former of them are constantly to be understood where there is mention of a Church in the singular number without any name of particular City added to it and that when a Province is mention'd 't is alwayes done by Churches in the plurall number This is the sense on which their argument is founded But if the Reader consult the Dissertations p. 190. He shall finde there is no such thing 't is onely this That in the New Testament there is mention made of Churches in the plurall number the Churches of Judaea of Samaria of Galilee of Syria of Cilicia of Galatia of Asia of Macedonia whereas in other places there was as frequent mention of a Church in the singular the Church in Jerusalem in Antioch in Cenchrea in Corinth of the Thessalonians of Ephesus of Smyrna of Pergamus of Thyatira of Sardis of LaodicaeaÌ„ 42. The cause of that difference is there said to be this that Judaea c was the name of a Province in which there being many Cities there were consequently many Churches and Bishops in them whereas one City with the territory adjoyning to it being ruled by one single Bishop was to be called a singular Church and therefore that which is said to be done in every Church Acts 14. 13. is said to be done in every City Tit. 1. 5. The sum of which observation is onely this that one City with the territory adjoyning to it never makes above one Church in the Scripture style whereas a Province or Country or Nation consists of many Cities and so of many Episcopall Sees or Churches 43. This was all that was said in that place or that was usefull to be said in order to the end to shew the Originall of Metropolitanes there And what a wresting of a plaine obvious observation is it to conclude it from hence to be my assertion that when that must be whensoever or else the conclusion cannot be deducible from it the Scripture speakes of a Province it is in the plurall number It doth sometimes do so and that was all that was usefull to me If it had done so but once though twenty times it had done the contrary it had been sufficient for some reasonable account there must be for the doing it once and what could that be but the number of the Cities and so of Churches in each Province or Nation much more when there were so many examples of it 44. But this is not to affirme that it alwayes doth so especially when being left at large without any restraint not the Church of Ephesus or the like but indofiniâ—ely the Church it is very capable of another interpretation For sure when I wrote that I had not forgotten my Creede or in it the name Church in the singular number which by the adjunct of Catholike must needs be more than the Church of one City And having read Mat. 16. where the whole Church of Christ is called my Church in the singular a like phrase to that of the Church of God which the Bishops here are commanded to feed and in the one Epistle to the Ephesiaâ—s having six examples of the word Church in the singular each signifying evidently the universall Church I might very well be allowed
to discerne the word Church in the singular without any addition of Ephesus or the like which restraines it in all the examples there produced to be appliable to a farre larger body than the Church of one City and consequently be quit from all obligation of making the Elders of the Church Act. 20. 17. the Elders of the one City of Ephesus 45. There is little doubt I suppose but the Church of the whole World consisting of many Churches as the parts thereof may be and is in Scripture called the Church in the singular and so certainly may the Church of a Nation or a Province especially if it be united together under one Primate or Metropolitane as it is certaine the Churches and Cities neer Ephesus nay over all Asia were according to the plaine words of St. Chrysostome who when others affirme of Timothy that he was by Paul ordained Bishop of the Metropolis of Epheâ—us expresseth the same thing thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is manifest that Timothy had a Church committed to him or indeed an intire Nation that of Asia The like is ordinarily observable of Crete a whole Island with an hundred Cities in it in each of which Titus was appointed to ordeine a Bishop or Elder which yet is styled in the subscription of the Epistle to Titus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Church of Crete and the subscription never questioned upon that score by any that it spake improperly herein 46. And consequently there can be no harshnesse in this interpretation Paul sent to Ephesus and call'd the Elders of the Church to come to him to Miletus and in his Oration addrest to them called them Bishop of the flock and of the Church of God meaning them singular praefects of severall Cities of the Church of Asia especially of those which were neerest Ephesus the chiefe Metropolis of the whole Nation 47. And so much in answer to that Objection in defence of their argument from the Elders of Ephesus as they call them 48. Another proofe of the same is there added Pag. 85. Thus The Syriack translation reads it he sent to Ephesus and called the Elders of the Church of Ephesus so Hierome Presbyteros Ecclesiae Ephesinae so concilium Aquisgranense 49. What authority St Hierome's testimony is to carry with us in this matter hath been elsewhere largely shewed and we may hereafter have farther occasion to declare it and our reasons of it At the present it is willingly confest that St. Hierome on Tit. 1. doth indeavour to prove that in Scripture Bishop and Presbyter is the same and from him Isidore Hispalensis de officiis Eccl. l. 2. hath the same and both have according to that prolepsis changed the words of the Text in the Acts and instead of what there we reade sent to Ephesus and called the Elders of the Church they read sent to Ephesus and called the Elders of the same Church expressing themselves to meane of the Church of Ephesus And the councell of Aken Aquisgranense having transcribed nine Chapters from Isidore verbatim consequently doe the like So that the authority of Isidore and that councell being as great as St. Hierome can make it from whom evidently it proceeds may yet be allowed to yeild to the farre greater authority of Polycarp's auditor Irenaeus who hath sufficiently cleared it to the contrary 50. As for the Syriack tanslation it is not here recited exactly accordingly to the truth For in that thus the words lie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And from Miletus he sent and called for the Elders of the Church of Ephesus where is but one mention of Ephesus not two as is here suggested from the translation that it reades he sent to Ephesus and called the Elders of the Church of Ephesus The short of it is Ephesus being but once named in that verse the Greeke placeth it in the begining 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from Miletus he sent to Ephesus and this being the Originall must certainly over-rule all translations and accordingly all translations but one to read it onely the Syriack hath mis-placed the word Ephesus put it in the later part of the period quite against all Syntaxis and for doing so are here cited and their testimony made use of to assist Presbytery when the manifest truth in the Originall and by all other translations acknowledged would not allow them any the least advantage 51. After they had produced these two arguments to prove that the Church in the City was governed in the Apostles days by a Common-councell of Presbyters the Reader would hardly expect that which now next followes in these words From all this we gather that the Asian Angels were not Diâ—cesan Bishops but congregationall Presbyters seated each of them in one Church not any of them in more than one 52. This conclusion as the words lie consists of two parts 1. That each of these Asian Angels under the title of Congregationall Presbyters was seated in one Church This if it were meant as the words sound were the granting to us all that we contend and would hardly be reconciled with the third observation that the Church in the City was governed by the common councell of Presbyters For sure each of those Presbyters is not a common councell But I rather believe they have not so soone disclaimed their praemisses and therefore that it is more reasonable to interpret their words by their principles than their meaning by their words and so that by congregationall Presbyters they meant so many Colleges of such Presbyters seated each of them i. e. each of those Colleges in one Church And if that be their conclusion I must acknowledge it to accord perfectly with their praemisses which being already answered there remaines no force in the conclusion 53. And for the second part that not any of them was seated in more than one understanding it againe as the words sound it is no way contrary to our pretensions for we doe not thinke that the Angel of Ephesus was seated in Smyrna or in any Church but that of Ephesios and the territory thereof and although as that was a Metropolis other Cities were under it and so other Bishops subordinate to the Bishop of Ephesus yet was not any other City the Seat of that Metropolitane but onely Ephesus whereof he takes his denomination as although Rochester be under the Metropolis of Canterbury yet the Archbishop of Canterbury is not seated at Rochester but some other Bishop affixt to that City and Diocese As for any other meaning of it proportionable to that which we were faine to affixe to the former I confesse my selfe ignorant what it can tend to For it is as if they should say not any councell of Presbyters was seated in more Churches than one Which is as if they should say no one body is in severall places And I know no Prelatist that either directly or by consequence hath affirmed it is 54. What remaines in the last Paragraph of this Chapter
are resolved I must have layen under if I had questioned the Divine Right of Presbyters though they can more than question the Divine Right of Bishops and never have remorse or compunction or dread any charge or â—entence for it Sect. VI. A first confession objected and vindicated Of the Ephesine Presbyters being all the Praelates of Asia Elders Aldermanni AFter these inconveniences briefly touched and almost as briefly by me averted they proceede to take notice in the fourth place of some confessions of mine which the justification of my opinion have forced from me By this method thinking as at length they say to render Episcopacy that is thus maintained or else my way of maintaining it odious and contemptible to all sober and godly and moderate Christians i.e. to all those who for the attaining of those titles good opinion and good words from them shall be invited to contemne or hate those whom they are yet pleased to call their brethren And this I confesse is the most compendious way of confuting that which would not otherwise be confuted What those confessions of mine are which are like to render my assertions so odious I must next take a view and consider with what justice this is said by them The first is that the Ephesine Presbyters whom Paul sent for to Miletus were all the Praelates of Asia To say that the Ephesine Presbyters in their sense of the phrase are Praelates of Asia were I confesse a ridiculous and so if they please a contemptible confession but I have yet been under no such torture from their arguments as should constrain such confession from mee What I say is sufficiently known to be my free opinion and no forced confession such as the necessity of a desperate enterprise might extort from me that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elders of the Church who by summons sent to Ephesus the chiefe Metropolis of all Asia and by that convenient way communicated to other Cities were assembled to Paul at Miletus Act. 20. 17. were as Irenaeus assures mee the Bishops of the other Cities in those parts and not only of the one City of Ephesus What harshnesse there can be in this assertion to be rejected as odious at the first hearing I confesse I divine not That those Cities had Bishops as well as Ephesus cannot be strange or that Paul desired to speake with them before his finall parting And that the Bishops may be called Elders will be as little strange if it be but remembred what is at large shewed in the Dissertations that the word Elder had in the Old Testament denoted dignity and Praefecture in single persons as when Abraham's Oeconomus who was set over his servants is styled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Elder of his house and Ruler of all that was his by Elder and Ruler signifying the same thing and so the Elders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Moabites Num. 22. 7. are the Princes of Moab v. 8. and the Elders of Israel are the heads or Praefects of the principall Families of Israel Exod 6. 14. the Rulers of the people c. 16. 22. the Elders of the Tribes Deut. 31. 28. and all this and much more before they were called into a Councell or Senate to assist Moses as appeares Num 11. 16. And proportionable to this hath been the use of the word among all Nations 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Elder alwayes hath the Rule and all obey him saith Diodorus Siculus and so Seniors in all languages is a title of honour and dignity And peculiarly among us as when Aethelstane the halfe King as he was called of the East Angles was saluted by the title of Aldermannus i.e. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elder of all England and so Aethelwod and Aelwin so in King Aelfred's Lawes c. 34. there is mention Regis Aldermanni and Presbyteri Regis And accordingly Mat. 20. 25. those words of the Princes of the Nations exercising dominion over them are by the Saxons interpreted Ealdoâ—men wealdaqthat hisa ðeodo Elders have dominion over their Nations and Luke 9. 22. the Elders and chief of the Priosts are by them rendred Ealdrum and Ealdormaannum All taking the word Elder for a title of Dignity and praefecture and from that notion of it the Preâ—bytorians are not observed to decline And then finally that the addition of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Church though in the singular cannot make it unfit for these Elders to denote the Bishâ—ps of Asia or neere Ephesus under that Metroplis hath been already accounted for at large And so still I hope they and all godly and moderate brethren need neither hate nor contemne Episcopacy nor the defenders of it upon pretense of this so farre from incommodious or inconvenient confession Section VII A second confession of the Bishops Phil. 1. 1. being Bishops of that whole Province Philippi a Metropolis and a Colony LIke unto this first is the second which they take notice of That the Bishops of Philippi whom S. Paul salutes Ch. 1. were not the Bishops of that City onely but of the whole Province whereas Theophylact saith that Philippi was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a little City subject to the Metropolis of Thessalonica That the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bishops Phil. 1. 1. denotes the Bishops of the Cities of Macedonia which were under this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 chiefe City or Metropolis as S. Luke calls it Acts 16. 12. is already evidenced to be no strange or violent I hope as little odious confession I neede not farther repeat or inlarge on that but beare in good part whatsoever fate is decreed by them to attend that Confession As for the Objection which is here subjoyned and to which they were directed by Dissert 4. c. 10. Sect. 12. they might if they had been so pleased have taken the antidote with the poyson observed and tendred to the Reader the answer which in the five following Sections is solemnely rendred to it and confuted that answer if they had discernd any infirme part in it First then the answer is that that description of Philippi in the argument prefixt to Theophylact's notes on that Epistle was taken out of an antient Geographer and belonged to that City as it was built by Philip having been formerly called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not to the later times under the Romane Empire and that it is no new or strange thing that under the Romans those Cities should become Metropoles which formerly had not been such to which agrees that of the Councell of Chalcedon Can. 12. which mentions 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cities honoured by the imperiall Letters with the name and dignity of Metropoles And indeed the saying of Strabo is of evident truth ordinarily experimented that Provinces were often confounded 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by cause of the Romans distributing them not according to the distributions of Regions or Nations such as the Geographers antiently had
for this must be contained in these words of theirs that follow in the former place The occasion of that Epistle seemes to be a new sedition raised by the Corinthians against their Presbyters p. 57. 58. Clemens to remove their present sedition tells them how God hath alwayes appointed severall orders in his Church which must not be confounded in the Jewish Church he appointed High-Priest Priests and Levites And then tells them for the time of the Gospell that Christ Jesus sent his Apostles as before citing the words of Clement already set down But certainly this doth not prove Bishops in that Epistle to be no more than Presbyters but may as fitly be argumentative for me that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elders in that Epistle signifie Bishops The onely imaginable medium of proofe which can be usefull for their turne I shall suppose to be this that Corinth was but one City and therefore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elders at and of Corinth must needs be Presbâ—ters because according to our opinion there were not more Bishops in one City But to this I answer 1. That what Clemens saith in the testimony now produced he speakes not of Corinth peculiarly but of the Cities and Regions in generall which the Apostles converted and of them in the plurall number 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 through Regions and Cities and then in those many Cities there may well be many Bishops and yet certainly no more than one in one City Secondly that this Epistle of Clemens to the Corinthians was not to the Christians of that one City but to the whole Province of Achaia of which Corinth was the Metropolis and wherein the Proconsull of Achaia resided and kept his Courts Act. 18. 12. 15. So the Title of the Epistle inclines being inscribed to the Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which denotes the whole Province then called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as when in Polycarps Epistle the Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not onely that of the City Philippi but of the Province belonging to it and in the other part of the title of this Epistle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Church of God dwelling about Rome in the Church of Rome and all that belonged to that Metropolis called by Ignatius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the place of the Region of the Romans i. e. the City and the whole Region about it And so when Eusebius mentions Dionysius the famous Bishop of Corinth he calls him Bishop 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Province of or about Corinth And that this is the truth of it and no conjecture of mine may appeare by one character in the Epistle He tells them that they had formerly received Epistles from St. Paul This directs to resolve that these to whom this Epistle was addrest were the same to whom St. Paul's were formerly sent And it is evident that those were the Saints or Christians in all Achaia 2 Cor. 1. 1. And the same is doubtlesse implied by the phrase in every place 1 Cor. 1. 2. not in every place simply of the World for it was no Catholick Epistle but a particular admonition for particular faults incest c. but in that whole Porvince or Region of Achaia So that which Apollos is said to have done among them Apollos hath watered 1 Cor. 3. 6. appeares by the story Act. 18. 27. to have belonged to all Achaia And so what the Apostle writes to them of sending their offertory to Judaea 1 Cor. 6. 1. 2 Cor. 8. and 9. doth appeare by Rom. 15. 26. to appertaine to all Achaia Macedonia saith he and Achaia have pleased to make a contribution and 2 Cor. 9. 2. I know your forwardnesse that Achaia hath been ready above a yeare agoe Where the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 you and Achaia must needs be of the same latitude and so againe it is c. 11. 9. compared with v. 18. And so those of St. Paul and consequently this of Clement was not to the City of Corinth alone but to all the Churches of Achaia and if among them there were more Bishops than one there will certainly be no newes in that and if those Bishops according both to the nature of the word and the use of it in those dayes before and after Clement were styled sometimes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sometimes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 also then all is very agreeable to all that we contend for that there was one Bishop not a College of Presbyters in Clements dayes in every City And this is directly the importance of Clements words as they lie in the Epistle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Christ was sent out from God and the Apostles from Christ As my Father sent me so send I you And then to shew that the Bishops were in the same manner sent i. e. commissionated by them he addes that they i. e. the Apostles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 went out Preaching 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Therefore Preaching through Regions and Cities they constituted their first fruits for Bishops and Deacons Cities and Regions in the Plurall and Bishops and Deacons proportionable thereto And when he addes that they were thus made of their first fruits i. e. of those that were first converted by them and to this end that they might be officers of those which should after believe supposing that there were not many now that did so this is directly a description of those times of which Epiphanius speakes saying that when the Gospell began to be Preacht there was yet no neede of Presbyters but Bishops and Deacons served the turne And accordingly Deacons in those dayes were immediately made Bishops as is sufficiently knowne of Clement the Writer of this Epistle who was St. Peters Deacon and Bishop after him as is cleared in Dissert 5. c. 1. Sect. 11. And so much for that first testimony One thing onely more from hence they are desirous to conclude that in the first and purest times the custome was to choose Bishops in Villages as well as in great Cities grounded upon this that here the Apostles are said to have appointed Bishops 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as well as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But there is no ground of this conclusion in this testimony For 1. here is no mention of villages 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not Greek for them but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 't is the former not the latter which here we finde It is evident what is meant by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when it is joyned with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cities viz. Provinces which have each of them many Cities in them and when it is joyned with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Villages it sitly denotes Regions in which there are many Villages So saith Strabo of Asia 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Romans made that Region a Province and so in the Ecclesiastical writings 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a Province made up
of many Cities each of which had a Bishop over them as when in the Councel in Trullo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cyprian is said to be Archbishop of the Region of the Africanes Region there signifying the whole Province under that Metropolitane and so Cyprian himselfe makes it his observation Jampridem per omnes provincias singulas urbes instituti sunt Episcopi Antiently through all the Provinces and each of the Cities Bishops were instituted Where the Bishops in the several Provinces as those differ from the Bishops in each City are undoubtedly Archbishops And if that place so very agreeable to this of Clemens may be allowed to give us the meaning of it we see what it will be and how distant from these mens conclusion that the Apostles instituted Bishops in every City and in each Region or Province and in the Metropolis or chiefe City of it a Metropolitane or Archbishop But then 2. if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should signifie as they would have it a company of villages or little townes lying neer together so as to be here used in opposition to the Cities yet could it not be from hence concluded that the Apostles constituted Bishops in those villages The words are they preached through regions and Cities and constituted their first fruits earlyest converts into Bishops and Deacons which will be perfectly true though all the Bishops and Deacons constituted by them had their fixt seats of residence in the Cities For that they constituted Bishops in the Regions is not here affirmed Much more might be said in this matter to shew that the utmost concessions that the adversaries could demand from hence would no way hinder or disadvantage our pretensions but onely give the Chorepiscopi a greater Antiquitie in the Church than either they or we have reason to thinke they had of which whole matter the reader may see a full discourse Dissert 3. c. 8. Sect. 25. c. and of it somewhat we shall anon have occasion to repete from thence The second Testimony of Clemens is set down by them in these words That the Apostles knowing by Jesus Christ that there would a contention arise 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 about the name of Bishop being indued with perfect foreknowledg they appointed the aforesaid that is the aforesaid orders of Bishops and Deacons c. Here they require two things to be noted 1. that by name is not meant the bare name of Bishop but the honour and dignity as it is taken Phil. 2. 9. Ephes 1. 21. Heb. 1. 4. Rev. 11. so that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The controversie among the Corinthians was not about the name but dignity of Episcopacy for it was about the deposition of their godly Presbyters pag. 57. 58. 2. That the onely remedy appointed by the Apostles for the cure of all contentions arising about Episcopacy is by committing the care of the Church to Bishops and Deacons Afterwards the Church found out another way by setting up one Bishop over another But Clemens tells us that the Apostles indued with perfect foreknowledge of things ordained only Bishops and Deacons for a remedy of Schismes To this they adde to supersede farther citations our of this Epistle It would be too long to recite all that is said in this Epistle for the justification of our proposition let the Reader peruse pag. 57. 62. 69. 72. and take notice that those which are called Bishops in one place are called Presbyters in another and that they are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 throughout the whole Epistle What this whole Epistle will yeild toward the proof of their proposition which is That after Christs Ascension the Church of God for a certaine space of time was governed by a Common Councel of Presbyters without Bishops I thinke it reasonable for any that hath not read it to conjecture by these two testimonies which these who assert the proposition and here undertake to prove it have thought fit to cull out of it having withall nothing more to collect for their turne from the rest of the Epistle particularly from the comparing those foure pages 57. 62. 72. but only this that they which are called Bishops in one place are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elders in another Now this last they know is the very thing that I contend as from the Scripture so from this and other antient writings that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bishop and Elder are words of the same importance all the question is whether at the first both imported Bishops or both Presbyters in our moderne notion That there is no one circumstance so much as offered by them to consideration which may incline it their way is evident by their owne words neither of their two notes pretending to it only their conclusion affirming that they are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 words of the same importance The whole matter therefore will still divolve to this one Quaere whether when Clement saith of the Apostles that they constituted none but Bishops and Deacons by Bishops a College of Presbyters in every City be to be understood or rather one Bishop with his Deacon or Deacons in every City For the clearing of this one difficulty for this being evinced all that their two notes affirme is directly on our side against them I shall here intirely set downe the whole place last produced of which they have left out one halfe It is thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Our Apostles knew by our Lord Jesus Christ that must be by revelation from him that there would contention arise upon the name or dignity of Episcopacie i. e. about the authority of Bishops in the Church some opposing it and casting them out of their Offices as here in the Church of the Corinthians and through all Achaia was actually come to passe at this time and occasioned this Epistle to them For which cause therefore the Apostles having received perfect foreknwoledge that there would be such contentions on this occasion did for the preventing of them constitute the forementioned Bishops and Deacons of those which should come in to the Faith in their new plantations and after them so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies in Barnabas's Epistle Sect. 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the people that should be after and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Act. 13. 42. that which should follow the next after gave a Series or Catalogue or manner of succession i. e. set downe a note of them which in each Church should succeed the present Incumbent that when they dyed other approved men might succeede to their office or ministery What can be more manifest than that the dignity which the Apostles conferred on the Bishops in each City and Province which in the former Testimony hath been cleared to belong to single Bishops not to any College of Presbyters was by them foreseen that it would be matter of Contention occasion of Sedition in the Church for the prevention of
hee governed the Metropolitan City of Ephesus that prime Metropolis of all Asia to the Bishop whereof saith Chrysostome was intrusted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the whole Nation of Asia These testimonies may suffice for the substance of the affirmation that St. John governed the Church of Ephesus and under it all Asia which is the notion wee now have of a Bishop Metropolitane and Primate 4. As for the word Bishop how can it be inconvenient to bestow that upon him when hee discharged the Office nay when Christ himselfe that great exemplar and originall of this power is expresly called the Bishop of our Soules as well as the Apostle when the Office from which Judas fell and to which Matthias is assumed is by St. Luke out of the Septuagint called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bishoprick Act. 1. 20. When accordingly from the Scripture usage the Fathers of the Church have continued the style Apostolos i. e. Episcopos Praepositos Dominus elegit the Lord chose Apostles i. e. Bishops and Governours of the Church saith Cyprian and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Peter and Paul were the first or chiefe in Rome the same persons Apostles and Bishops saith Epiphanius and Apostoli Episcopi sunt firmante illud Petro Apostolâ— the Apostles were Bishops as is confirmed by Peter in these words His Bishoprick let another take saith Hilarius Sardus and againe Areall Apostles â—Tis true saith hee quia in Ecelesiâ unus Episcopus because in each Church there is one Bishop And Nemo ignorat Episcopos servatorem Ecclesiâ—s instituisse Ipse enim priusquam ascenderet imponens manum Apostolis ordinavit eos Episcopos No man is ignorant that our Saviour instituted Bishops in the Church for before he ascended to Heaven hee laid his hands on the Disciples and ordained them Bishops saith the Writer of the questions on the Old and New Testament and Sanctus Matthâ—us Episcopatum sortitus est St. Matthew was Bishop saith Gildas And to shut up all 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is manifest that the Apostles were Bishops St John in Asia St. Andrew in Achaia St. Thomas in India saith Gabriel Philadelph And agreeably when St. John of whom we now speake calls himselfe in the front of two Epistles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Elder the Greek scholiast resolves 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the word Elder he calls himselfe Bishop And so there is no newes in thus affirming 5. But then secondly when they take this for an evident demonstration that these Authors did not use the word Bishop in a Prelaticall sense this is very farre distant from a demonstration having not arrived to the lowest degree of probability or credibility For what is a Bishop in the Prelaticall sense but a single person governing in chiefe in a City or wider circuit And such certainly was St. Peter at Rome S. John at Ephesus c. As long as they continued to execute that power of the Keyes the donation of which instituted them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Steward 's in Gods House Governours of the Church in this or that City or Region and ordained other Bishops there Thirdly therefore when 't is added that it is certaine that the Apostles cannot be properly called Bishops I reply that it is most certaine they may not onely because these so many antient Writers through severall ages have called them so and may not with any justice from us be accused of impropriety but because the donation of the Keyes did as properly make them Bishops as the Commission to goe preach to all Nations being added to it made them Apostles To which purpose let these few things be considered 1. That it is here by the Assemblies acknowledged that the Apostles did eminently conteine the Episcopall Office which though it be a little hastily expressed and should be I suppose that the Apostolicall Office did eminently containe the Episcopall yet there is no doubt but this is the meaning of it that the Apostles had all the Episcopall power in their hands and over and above something more and if they had Episcopall power then sure in respect of that they may as properly be called Bishops as in respect of their Apostolicall Commission which they had also they may be properly called Apostles Thus we know that they that have first the power of Deacons bestowed on them and after of Presbyters are questionlesse Deacons still though they be also Presbyters and they which from the Office of Presbyters are advanced to Bishops are certainly Presbyters still though they be also Bishops and doe not lose the former power by being advanced to the latter are not lessened by this increase of their dignity 7. Secondly that when an Apostle is differenced from a Bishop it is either by his extraordinary power granted him for the planting of the Church or by the Vniversality of his Diocese the all the World to which his Commission extended whereas the ordinary Bishop's power and Diocese are more limited But then these differences are of no force in this matter they onely conclude that the Apostle is more than a Bishop in those two respects not that in other sufficient respects he is not a Bishop 8. Thirdly when the Apostles had each of them not onely all together in a consistory that unlimited power in respect of the extent to all the World given to them by Christ wee know that after his ascent they parted and distributed this Province among them assigned every one 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his proper place or lot to which he should betake himselfe for the planting of the faith of Christ And then there will be no doubt but that hee who according to his line in St. Paul's phrase had planted the faith in such a City or Province and sat downe and confirmed and farther instituted which is the meaning of labouring in the Doctrine as well as in the word and govern'd them and exercised all Episcopall acts among them might in so doing be stiled a Bishop in that City or province and that as truely and as properlâ— as he that could doe all the latter and not the former building on another mans foundation goâ—erning and instructing where another had planted the faith might be said to be 9. Nay fourthly we know that although by Canons of the Church there is provision made upon prudentiall considerations that no man shall be made a Bishop sine titulo without a title or particular See to which hee is assigned yet before those Canons forbad it such Bishops there were and those never doubted to be properly Bishops though they were not affixt to any Diocese And then nothing can hinder but that the Apostle who had each the whole World for his Title though hee were never affixed to any particular Diocese or Province might be most properly styled a Bishop for all that But this is ex abundanti more than is needfull to our present praetentions
And these Presbyters are called Bishops and were all of them Stars of the same magnitude and Angels of the same order without a difference or distinction 2. But this is a way of proving a thing which is denyed by another which they know is equally denyed by him against whom they dispute and therefore that argument can be of no force with us 3. 'T is most true indeed what they begin with that the Church of Ephesus was a collective body for so 't is certaine every Church is whether governed by one or more Rulers But the Church is not the Angel any more than the candlestickes are the Stars but punctually distinguished from them Rev. 1. 20. But this I suppose was a mistake hastily fallen from them and I shall not pursue it any farther 4. Their argument I conceive depends upon the plurality of Elders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which were at Ephesus Act. 20. when Paul takes his leave of them and calls them Bishops But to this they know I have answered clearly that as in other places of Scripture so in that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elders being all one with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bishops denote not the many Presbyters of the one City of Ephesus but the many Bishops of that and other Cities of Asia which at that time by S. Paul's summons sent to Ephesus the chiefe Metropolis of Asia were called and met together at Miletus 5. To this purpose Irenaeus is a witnesse beyond exception who speaking of these Elders or Bishops addes ab Epheso proximis civitatibus convocatos esse that they were assembled from Ephesus and the next Cities in which as the faith was planted as well as in Ephesus even in all Asia so there is no reason to doubt but there were Bishops in them as well as in Ephesus seven such Churches we know are here mentioned in the Revelation and that Paul was as carefull to take his leave of them as many as could conveniently come to Miletus in his hasty progresse as of the Bishop of Ephesus hee is justly deemed to have been 6. Other arguments and authorities I need not here accumulate for this notion of Elders Act. 20. because here is no appearance of reason offered to prove their or impugne our Assertion This perhaps will be afterward attempted and then I shall as occasion requires farther enlarge In the meane it sufficeth that it yet no way appeares that Ephesus was governed by many Presbyters and not by one Bishop and therefore this second offer of reason is as deficient as the first to prove the Angel of that Church to have been a collective body Section X. Of expressing a number by singulars A Church by a Candlestick Of the seven Angels Rev. 8. THeir third reason is because It is usuall with the Holy Ghost not onely in other Bookes of Scripture but in this very Booke of the Revelation in mysterious and prophetick writings and visionall representations such as this of the Starres and Golden â—Candlestick is to expresse a number of things or persons in singulars And this in visions is the usuall way of Representation of things a thousand persons making up one Church is represented by one Candlestick many Ministers making up one Presbytery by one Angel Thus Rev. 8. 2. It is said that John saw seven Angels which stood before God By these seven Candlesticks I suppose it should be seven Angels Dr. Reynolds doth not understand seven individuall Angels but all the Angels For there are no seven individuall Angels but all the Angels For there are no seven individuall Angels that stand before God but all doe Dan 7. there are many more instances brought in the Bookes forementioned 2. To this third Reason I have no obligation or notice to give credit any farther than the evidences perswade for many of which though we are referred to Smectymnuus c. yet having received promise from these that they would borrow a few things from those others I shall with reason hope that what they have upon choise borrowed leaving as they say much more behind is the most satisfactory and solid of any thing by them produced and consequently if there be no force in these instances to oppugne our conclusion we shall not expect to finde more convincing ones by travailing farther and gathering up out of those dispersions what they have refused to take up and offer to us 3. The thing they would prove is that 't is usuall with the Holy Ghost in this as in other mysterious prophetick Bookes to expresse a number of things or persons by singulars Their proofes are but three and the first is of no force because the word Church denotes a singular thing as well as Candlestick that represents it for though a thousand men make up one Church yet one Church is but one thing considered as a Church and proportionably as one Candlestick in the singular is set to denote each Church so there are seven Candlesticks to represent the seven Churches 4. As for the second that of the Angels that that signifies many Ministers that cannot be offered as a proofe being it selfe the matter of the question And indeed though Church be a collective body and so one Church is knowne to consist of many men yet Angel is not of that nature one Angel neither signifies many men nor many Angels 5. And whereas the parallel is set betwixt the word Candlestick and the word Angel that they each are singular words by which multitudes are represented that is a mistake for the parallel lyes betwixt Church and Angel and on the other side betwixt Candlestick and Starre as appeares Rev. 1. 20. and both these are individual things the Church an individual Church and there be seven such individual Churches and the Angel an individual Angel and there be seven such individual Angels and there can be no more pretense that one Angel should signifie many Ministers than that one Church should signifie many Congregations 6. Lastly for the third proofe that of seven Angels Rev. 8. 2. if that were granted to Doctor Reynold's authority that the seven Angels there signifies all the Angels yet would it not at all contribute to the proofe of the point in hand which is that many shall be signified by a singular for we know that seven are not a singular but the custome indeed being ordinary to use a certaine definite number for an uncertaine or indefinite and the septenary being a perfect number and so fittest for the turne 't is more tolerable that the number of seven may represent some greater number one plural a larger plural than that a singular one should doe so 7. And yet secondly there is no great reason to doubt but that the seven Angels are indeed very seven Angels and no more This I collect 1. from the seven Trumpets that were given them ver 2. and the specifying them by that Character the seven Angels which had the seven Trumpets ver
may be in them 4. Master Brightman I know and some others 't is possible may have interpreted the Angel to signifie the whole College of Pastors and truly I should much sooner take up an Interpretation upon the bare word of these Assemblers than I would upon no better evidence from M. Brightman He was one learned man long knowne to be unkinde to our Pralates and here are many for ought I know as learned though under the same praejudices 5. Some others here cited I cannot believe are brought to testifie this but onely that what is said to the Angel in each part of the Epistle was said to the whole Church and not onely to the Bishop and if that be all they say it is that which we cannot doubt to affirme with them and have oft confest to understand Christ's Epistle so without any incommodity to our praetensions 6. If I mistake in these conjectures I desire pardon and shall hope to give a better account when I reade the testimonies in the Authors from whence they are cited For in these derivations of testimonies the Assemblers citing them from Smectymnuus Smectymnuus from Master Foxe Master Foxe from Primasius c. there is great possibility of mistake and therefore I shall follow the example before me forbeare adding any more of this matter 7. In the next place they are pleased to take notice as of an objection against their interpretation that some Authors say Timothy was Bishop of Ephesus when our Saviour wrote this Epistle others that Onesimus was Bishop others that Polycarp was Bishop of Smyrna at that time and therefore these Angels must needs be taken individually for so many single persons 8. Of this Objection which they have thus formed for us there is onely thus much of truth that out of authentique Records we bring undeniable evidences for Timothies being constituted by St. Paul Bishop of Ephesus for Onesimus being placed in that See at the time of Ignatius's writing to the Ephesians that Polycarpe was constituted Bishop of Smyrna by S. John of all which we have spoken enough already 9. But of all or any of these being Bishops in those Cities at the very time of Christ's addressing this Epistle to the Angels of each this had no where been our affirmation nor would it have beene usefull to us in any considerable degree if we had grounds positively to affirme it All that is needfull to us is this that by the Antient Records which evidence them to have been so early Bishops in two of those Churches to which Christ's Epistle was sent and Bishops in the notion wherein we now use the word we are secured of the truth of ouâ— collections when from the mention of the seven Angels of the 7. Churches we assert the Ecclesiasticall power in the hands of a single Bishop in each Church to be owned and confirmed by Christ And supposing some other persons and none of these three to have beene those very numericall Angels to whom those Epistles were written this conclusion of ours stands yet as firme as if we could demonstrate it of those very numericall persons there being no reason to doubt but the same manner of Government continued all the Scripture times and to Timothies successour and Onesimus's predecessor being as certainly Bishops as either Onesimus or Timothy himselfe when withall we have already produced mentions from the Antients of the Catalogues of those Bishops which succe dede Timothy in that See 10. Having thus set right the Objection for them so as it is owned by us to be an Objection against them it will now soone appeare what force there is in their answers to it and those are three 11. First that they that say that Timothy was then Bishop offer no little injury to him for they thereby charge him to be guilty of Apostacy and of losing his first love and so out of a blind zeale to Episcopacy they make that glorious Saint to stand charged as an Apostate The like injury is offered by Objections to Onesimâ—s 12. But first you see whatever our opinion is exprest to be we have not affirmed either of these as to the person either of Timothy or Onesimus but left it uncertaine who the Angel of the Church of Ephesus was whether either or neither of these but some successor of the one and predecessor of the other and so what charge soever falls on that Angel it falls not necessarily on either of these 13. Secondly it is already agreed betwixt the parties affirmed by them and acknowledged by me that the Epistle being addrest to the Angel of Ephesus the Church or diffusive body the Christians in it were concerned in the contents of it And then whatsoever charge be found in the Epistle of how heavy a nature soever even of Apostacy it selfe yet there is no necessity the Angel or Bishop should be personally guilty of it and so whosoever the Bishop was though Timothy himselfe our zeale to Episcopacy hath not beene so blind or transporting as to put us on any uncharitable censure to affix any unhandsome character upon so glorious a Saint 14. Lastly to remove this answer yet one degree farther from being satisfactory it no where appeares that apostacy is in that Epistle laid to the charge whether of the Church or Angel The first part is all in commendatiâ—n of their former zeal and the later wherein their charge consists v. 4. is only this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is not as is suggested losing their first love but remitting it Their love to Christ had formerly been strong as death pure and vehement such as had cast out all feare of dangers and evidenced it selfe in couragious confession but now though it were not quite lost yet it was remitted lessened in the degree not so intense as formerly and therefore when they are bid remember from whence they are fallen that fall doth not necessarily signifie Apostacy or renouncing of Christianity for then it had been an impertinent threatning to remove their Chandlestick v. 5. but a falling from the former degree a cooling of the intense heat which had been so laudable in them And so still there is more invalidity in this first answer Section XII Of Timothies being an Evangelist that it hinders not his being a Bishop THe second is that they have already proved that Timothy was an Evangelist in a proper sense and therefore cannot be called Bishop of Ephesus in their sense 2. To this I reply 1. That Timothies being an Evangelist no way prejudgeth his being a Bishop in our â—ense An Evangelist is one commissionated by any of the Apostles ' 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to preach the Gospell to any City or People And a Bishop is one commissionated by the like Apostle to praeside in and governe a Church already planted And what hinders but that he that hath beene employed in the former capacity to plant may elsewhere or in the same place be appointed to Governe and
a temporary President or Prolecutor and brought no manner of reason to confirme it will have very little validity in it 5. What is proved by the bare testimony of Beza is farther confirmed by a like citation out of the Reverend Divines at the Isle of Wight who by the example of the King sending a message to both Houses and directing it To the Speaker of the House of Peeres which inferres not that 〈◊〉 the Speaker is alwayes the same person or the Governour or Ruler of the two Houses in the least conclude that notwithstanding this direction of Christ's Epistle to the Angels yet they might be neither Bishops nor yet perpetuall Moderators 6. But the authority of those Divines which had this answer from Beza addes nothing of weight because nothing of proofe to it As for their similitude it concludes nothing but this that these Divines thought fit to make use of this instance of a Speaker in Parliament to shew the thing possible to have been not to prove that so it was And the matter of our present inquiry is not what a kinde of president Christ and his Apostles might if they would have left in each Church but what really they did And that must be contested by the best Records of those times not by a similitude of a Speaker in our Parliaments And that is all I neede to say to that Section Section XV. Of Dr. Reynolds interpretation of the Bishop in Cyprian Of Ordination by Bishops not without Presbyters from the Testimonies of Cyprian and Fermilian AFter the authority of Mr. Beza backt with that of the Divines at the Isle of Wight is added in the second place the authority of Dr. Reynolds who as he hath a Letter in print against the Divine Right of Episcopacy so he acknowledgeth also in his conference with Hart Dial. 3. That this Angel was persona singularis For he saith 2. The whole place of Dr. Reynolds is set down at large by the Archbishop of Armagh in the front of his learned Dissertation of the Originall of Bishops and Metropolitanes and I shall not neede here to recite it being of some length and indeed nothing in it defined or exprest of his opinion that the President when he was made such either continued to be equall with the rest of the Presbyters or lasted but for a time so as the Prolocutor of an Assembly doth I am sure he affirms him to have had the Presidentship not among but over Elders which I suppose must imply some power and that this was he that in the Primitive Church the Fathers called Bishop and applies to him the mentions of Bishops made by St. Cyprian and Cornelius of whose notion of Bishops that it 〈◊〉 not to a bare Prolocutor of an Assembly nay that in nothing it differeth from ours I am sufficiently assured and so will the Reader by what is cited from him Dissert 3. c. 3. § 13. And because from some other intimations in this Book I see there is neede of it I shall here 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 out of many mention this one evidence more 3. In the 60 Epistle to Rogation a Bishop who had beene wronged and contumeliously used by a Deacon of his Church and had written an account of it to Cyprian and the annuall Councell of Bishops with him Cyprian returnes this Answer that it was his humility to make this complaint to the councell Cum pro Episcopatus vigore Cathedrae authoritate haberes potestatem quâ possis de illo statim vindicari when by force of his Episcopall power and by authority of his chaire hee had power himselfe to inflict punishment on him immediatly and that punishment afterward specified ut eum deponas vel abstineas either to depose him or suspend him 4. Here it was a part of Rogatian's Episcopall power without any joyning with him to judge and censure the inferiour Officers of the Church and they were bound honorem sacerdotis agnoscere Episcopo praeposito suo as it followes in that Epistle to acknowledge the honour of their Priest and with full humility make satisfaction to the Bishop which is set over them All power in the hands of one set over all call'd promiscuousâ—ly Priest and Bishop in Cyprian's style 5. And therefore when in the Appendix to this Book these men to prove that Ordination by Bishops without the assistance of Presbyters was alwayes forbidden and opposed tell us of Aureliu's being ordained by Cyprian and his Collegues Ep. 33. and then assure us from 8p 58. that by his collegues he meanes his Presbyters where yet there is no other proofe of it but the using of these words in the Inscription of the Epistle Cyprianus cum Collegis and Ego collegae Cyprian with his collegues and I and my collegues This is a great but discernible fallacy put upon the Reader as will soone appeare 1. If we but observe that the 33 Epistle where he tells of Aurelius was written by Cyprian to his Presbyters and so they are the persons whom he advertiseth what he and his Collegues had done and so sure were not those Collegues that did it with him Or secondly if for the understanding Cyprian's notion of Collegues Ep. 58. we shall but looke forward to the next Epistle 59. for that will fully discover it being this Cyprianus caeteri Collegae qui in Concilio affuerunt numero LXVI where Cyprians Collegues are evidently the 66. Bishops that were in Councel with him 6. The like might be also observed of the Testimony out of Firmilian which they there subjoyne of the Seniores and Praepositi that have power of ordeining by whom say they the Presbyters as well as the Bishops are understood But againe 't is cleare by the expresse words of the Epistle that by them are meant the Bishops in their annual Councel Necessariâ— apud nos fit ut per singulos annos Seniores Praepositi in unuâ— conveniamus 'T is necessary that every yeare we the Elders and Governors should meet together to dispose and order those things which are committed to our care adding concerning the Church in opposition to Hereticks that all power and grace is placed in it ubi praesident majores natu qui Baptizandi manum imponendi ordinandi possident potestatem wherein the Elders praeside and have power of Baptizing absolving and ordeining an evident description of the Bishops But this by the way as an essay what their testimonies out of the Fathers scattered sometimes in this Book would be found to be if this were a place to examine them 7. Lastly Dr. Reinolds acknowledges another Praesident even among Bishops the Bishop of the chiefest City in the Province and so a Metropolitan All which are contrary enough to the praetensions of the Presbyterians what amends he hath made them in his Printed letter I know not 8. Yet after all this there lyes no obligation upon us to regulate our Doctrine by Doctor
Reinolds's scheme in this matter being sufficiently instructed by the Primitive records and practice what kind of power and dignity belonged to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Praesident among them the very same that we now pretend to be the Bishops due And if Christ's letter were addrest to the Angel as to such a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Praesident 't is all that we desire to erect our fabrick of Spiscopacy on this one place if there were not as there are others able to support the weight of it 9. And so we see what reasons have been brought to make good their second head of Answers of which we had promise that they were solid and every way sufficient answers and yet in the issue there is nothing so much as offered toward it save onely the testimony of Master Beza the Divines at the Isle of Wight which is by interpretation themselve◠and Doctor Reynolds who yet is not perfectly of their party neither Section XVI Of the Churches of Asia being Metropolitical Of the paueity of believers HAving thus done they say It is objected by some men that the seven Cities in which these seven Asian Churches had their seat were all of them Metropolitical and so had relation to the rest of the Towns and Cities of Asia as unto daughters rising under them and that therefore these Churches were Metropolitical Churches and their Angels Metropolitical Bishops 2. How this comes to be styled an objection I cannot well guesse or what it is against which it is thought to be objected The truth of it as farre as any Episcopal person I know is interessed in it is this It is not onely evident of the Angels of the seven Asian Churches that they were Bishops which is sufficient for us against the Assemblers but there is over and above that all reason to deem them Starres of a first magnitude i. e. Bishops of Mother-Cities Metropolitanes and that very pertinent to be urged in this matter of the Asian Angels not to secure the proofes of Episcopacy taken from thence but to render a reason why in all Asia but seven Churches and their Bishops are named there To this purpose the discourse is inlarged above what it needed to have been Dissert 4. 5. to set downe the nature of Metropolitanes the exemplars of them among the Jewes the expresses of the Institution in the Apostles writings and the signal evidences of it in the Primitive Church and the Antient Canons in the Councel of Nice and Antioch and Ephesus all owning them as Primitive and Apostolical Institutions and all this exemplified in Jerusalem in Antioch in Rome in Alexandria in Gortyna of Creet and at length in all the seven Churches of Asia 3. What is there thus set down if it have not perfect truth in it I shall be very glad to see the weake parts of that discourse discovered and therefore though I never proposed or meant it as an Objection of ours against the Presbyterians having no need of such auxiliaries and the whole matter being sufficiently proved without and this onely added ex abundanti yet I shall most willingly attend their motions and see what answers they will adapt to this Objection as they call it 4. And 1. they answer that it will hardly be proved that these seven Cities were all of them Metropolitical Cities in S. John's dayes And the scituation of most them lying neerer together on the Sea side makes it very improbable 5. To this I reply that for five of them Ephesus Smyrna Sardis Pergamus and Laodicaea Pliny that lived and wrote in the beginning of Vespatian's reigne is a competent witnesse that they were Cities wherein the Roman Proconsuls sixt their Courts or Seats of Judicature and administred justice there to all the Cities about them and that is the interpretation of a chiefe City or Metropolis in the secular account and agreeably Vlpian mentions Ephesus as the chief of these Metropoles And for the other two Philadelphia and Thyatira the latter of these by Ptolomee the former by the Councel of Constantinople sub Menâ is punctually affirmed to be a Metropolis To these are added other evidences and reasons and the Lord Arch-Bishop of Armagh hath written besides his Original of Metropolitanes a very learned Dissertation of the Lydian Asia on purpose to cleare this matter 6. And when a thing is so largely proved already and when a satisfactory proofe of it in any one of the seven Cities is abundantly sufficient to the asserting of Metropolitanes for then the Angel of that one was a Metropolitan 't is then certainly a very incompetent confutation barely to say that it will hardly be proved that these seven Cities were all of them Metropolitical Cities in Saint John's dayes for if it be proved it matters now how hardly and if any one were so in S. John's dayes it matters not if possibly some other were not that one was a Metropolitical Angel which is all we need insist on 7. And for the Argument to make it improbable drawn from the situation of the Cities that is as infirme for this as all other controversies of matters of fact must be waged by authorities of those which were likely to know the truth and to testifie aright and to those we have all reason to adhere and not to be moved by arguments that seeme probable to those that live 1600. yeares after and are not perhaps so perfect Masters of the Geographie of the place as duly to be able to judge even what is in that respect most probable 8. Nay for the distances of these Cities though I have not now Mr. Brightman by me yet my notes out of him tell me that in his scale of furlongs Pergamus was distant from Smyrna 540. furlongs i. e. about 68. English miles and Ephesus from Smyrna 320. i. e. about 40. miles and Thyatira from Pergamus 80. English miles which is a distance very reconcileable with their being Metropoles 9. But they are content to suppose this was true and then have answers ready another way 1. That it is no good argument from the greatnesse of the Cities to inferre the greatnesse of the Churches for though the Cities were great yet the Churches were but small and the number of believers very few in comparison of the rest of the people 10. To this I reply 1. by concession that in all places and times the greatnesse of the Church cannot absolutely be concluded from the greatnesse of the City because it is possible that a great City may have utterly resisted the faith and a lesser City received it or againe a greater City that hath received the Faith in some of the Members may yet have fewer believers in it than another City which is not so great This therefore is not our way of concluding from the bare greatnesse of the Cities to infer the great number of believers in them 11. Our way of concluding is this Paul had spent three yeares Act.
Orbe or with the divisions or distributions of this Nation within it selfe into Cities and Provinces c. or goe about to innovate any thing in that matter Is it not certaine that it was no part of the Christian faith to be such a judge or divider but on the other side that all should remaine as it did in that respect before the coming of Christianity And therefore supposing 1. That this Nation were governed by a King of its own is it not certain that this nationall Church should follow the boundaries of the Nation and so be modeld according to the government of the formerly Heathen Britannick state And supposing againe what hath already been proved by the testimony of Clemens and by comparing Act. 14. 23. with Tit. 1. 5. that a Bishop were constituted in every Church in each City will there be any reason of doubting but that those Cities being subordinate one to another according to the customes of the Nation the Churches in those Cities and the Bishops in those Churches shall be so also This I hope will not be deemed an impious compliance with heathenisme or conformity with the World nay though the Emperour of Rome by his conquests here were the author of these distributions 4. But then secondly it is already cleared in the Dissertations that this Ecclesiastick division of Cities into Mothers and Daughters Metropoles and inferiour Cities was by the Apostle copied out from the Jewes as when God commands by Moses that Judges and Officers should be ordained in every City Deut. 16. 18. and that in matters of weight and doubt they should resort to Jerusalem to the Judge and Sanhedrim there according to which it appeares that Jerusalem was the Metropolis of those other Cities and so is evident Act. 9. by the story of Saul carrying Letters of Commission from the Sanhedrim there to the consistories in Damascus and by many other evidences So likewise Numb 3. when three Families of the Levits the sonnes of Aaron were separated for the service of the Tabernacle and an head or Prince or President of every of these called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 v. 24. 30. 35. Eleazar Aaron's Sonne is constituted over all these and styled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the head of the heads of the Levites This is clearly a patterne of the Metropolitanes in the Christian Church which may therefore owne it's derivation from thence and not from the Heathen models of Government which yet it was not reasonably to disturbe being found so concordant to and commodious for it 5. And that what was done in this kind was done by the Apostles themselves and Apostolicall persons the first founders of Churches and not onely by the after policy as is suggested of Christian Emperours and Bishops might have appeared abundantly by these few testimonies of they had been worthy to be taken notice of First of the councell of Nice An. Domini 325. not many yeares after the conversion of Constantine the first Christian Emperour Can. 6. which takes care for the preserving the priviledges of the Metropolitanes by name that the Bishop of Alexandria should have power over the Churches in Aegypt Lybia and Pentapolis that in Antioch and the rest of the Provinces 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the priveleges should be preserved to the Churches begins with this rule 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let the antient customes continue in force which certainly referres to that which was long before the Christian Emperours and without any reason of doubting to the first constitutions of those Churches by St. Marke and St. Peter and then the Canon goes on to exact this by way of conformity with other places with Rome it selfe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for this is the custome of force with the Bishop of Rome and upon these grounds the Canon requires 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 universally that if any man be made a Bishop 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without the judgement of the Metropolitan he ought not to be Bishop 6. So in the 9. Canon of the Councell of Antioch in the yeare 341. which begins thus that the Bishop which presides in the Metropolis ought to know the Bishops in every Province and to take care of the whole Province 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because all that have businesse resort from all sides to the Metropolis which is the very thing we now contend to be the reason of conforming the Ecclesiastick to the civill models and then proceeds to forbid other Bishops acting any thing of such a nature without him this is backt with these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to the antient Canon of our Fathers which hath been in force referring againe to the immemoriall custome of all Churches since the first plantation and not the after-policie of Christian Emperours and Bishops as is here suggested 7. Lastly in the last canon of the Great councell of Ephesus in the yeare 431. which is the defining a speciall matter of Metropoliticall right where the occasion of the controversie is rehearsed how the Bishop of Antioch invaded the priviledges of the Cypriots contrary to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the antient custome and the decree is made that the Bishops of Cyprus shall retaine them inviolate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to the Canons of the Holy Fathers and the antient custome The Canon extends it selfe to all other Dioceses and Provinces that no Bishop shall meddle with another Province 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which was not upward and from the beginning under his i. e. his praedecessors power where it is most evident that the Metropolitical power and primacy Ecclesiasticall is derived from the beginning of the plantation of each Church and consequently that this was a part of Apostolicall policy and not onely an after policy of Christian Emperours c. 8. And upon these grounds of probation I shall be competently secured that this is proved which they doe not believe ever can be and have no other argument to prove their negative but their not believing the affirmative Section XVII Of the objection against Metropoles from the seven Starres in seven Churches OF the same temper is their third answer that they are fully assured that it can never be made out that any of these Asian Angels were Archbishops or Bishops over other Bishops or Bishops over divers settled Churches The seven Starres are said in Scripture to be fixed in their seven Candle-stickes or Churches not one Starre over divers Candle-stickes or Churches 2. What they are already fully assured of that it can never be made out I shall have little confidence to perswade them was formerly done to their hands Otherwise I should hope that by what had long since been said and hath now been more largely deduced in Reply to their last answer they might find cause to alter their judgements and retract their so definitive sentence of full assurance 3. As for the onely appearance of reason which is here superadded viz.
that the seven Stars are found fixed in seven not one over divers Churches this I conceive not to be of any force For it being by us granted and presumed that each of the seven Asian Angels was Bishop of his particular Church one of Ephesus another of Smyrna c. It is perfectly reconcileable herewith that in case these seven were not the onely Cities and Churches in Asia as it is certaine they were not all Asia consisting of many more Cities being before this converted to the Faith all the other might have dependance on these seven 4. For this we know that two Bishops in England that were each of them first in one City for example in Canterbury or Yorke had yet each of them a superiority or Metropoliticall power over divers other Cities and when any Record styles one of them Bishop of Canterbury as the Scripture doth Angel of Ephesus we should sure acknowledge it a very infirme inference from the words of that Record to conclude that being Bishop of Canterbury he could not be Metropolitan of London Rochester c. 5. And this is the very parallel to the present instance and if it were not invalid enough by being a bare negative argument they are not said in Scripture to be one Starre over divers Churches all things that are are not said in Scripture those Angels have not therefore no names because they are not there recorded this parallel instance which supposes the contrary to their pretensions would be sufficient to invalidate it Section XVIII Of the use of the word Bishop for Archbishop in Tertullian Of Angel in Christs Epistle A Fourth answer or rather confutation is added That if this opinion were true then Tertullian did not doe well in saying that St. John made Polycarpe Bishop of Smyrna but he should rather have said that he made him Archbishop And our Saviour Christ had not given to these seven Angels their due Titles for he must have written to the Angel of the Church of Ephesus together with all those Churches in the Cities subordinate to Ephesus And so likewise of the other six 2. To this I reply that the affirming the seven Angels to have been Metropolitanes no way obligeth us to find fault either with Tertullians or our Saviour's style Not with Tertullian's for 1. an Arch-Bishop is a Bishop though dignified above some others of that order Secondly supposing Smyrna to be a Metropolis as no doubt if it were Tertullian knew and supposed it to be then his styling Polycarp Bishop of Smyrna is aequivalent to his calling him a Metropolitaâ— or Archbishop As acknowledging Canterbury to be a Metropolitical See in England the affirming William Laud to be constituted Bishop of Canterbury is all one as to affirme him Archbishop 3. Thus when Chrysostome saith of Titus that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an intire Island and the judgement of so many Bishops was committed to him what is this but to affirme Titus Arch-bishop of Crete And yet Eusebius who believed this and adverted to it as much as Chrysostome uses this phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that he was Bishop of the Churches of Creet calling him Bishop distinctly though by the mention of the Churches in the plural 't is evident he meant the same that we doe by Arch-Bishop 4. So againe Eusebius of Irenaeus that he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was Bishop of the Provinces of France which must needs signifie Archbishop of Lyons for so he was And 't is certaine that other of the Antients use the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Arch-Bishop of those which were no otherwise qualified for that title as when Saint Cyprian the Bishop of Carthage under which the whole Province of Africk is comprehended is by the Councel of Constantinople called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Arch-Bishop of the region of Africk 5. The same answer will competently suffice for the reconciling Christ's style and ours for supposing Ephesus to have been a Metropolis the writing to the Angel of that Church implyes writing to those other Churches in the Cities subordinate to Ephesus and need not be more fully exprest as when the Apostle wrote to the Church of Corinth and not onely so but to all the Saints and so all the Churches in all Achaia 2 Cor. 1. 1. 't is certaine that the former Epistle was written to those very same Churches viz. all under the Metropolis of Corinth and yet it is inscribed to the Church of God which is at Corinth 1 Cor. 1. 1. without mentioning of Achaia save onely in a general indefinite phrase with all that in every place call on the name of Jesus 6. Secondly the word in Christ's Epistle being not Bishop but Angel is not at all lyable to this exception For why may not an Arch-Bishop be as fitly called an Angel as a Bishop would be nay if it be remembred what was formerly cited out of Clemens Alexandrinus Strom. 6. that there are seven Angels which have the greatest power by him styled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the first-borne rulers of the Angels parallel to the phrase in Dan. 7. 10. 13. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the head Lords or chiefe Princes or as we ordinarily stile them the Archangels of which number Michael is there named to be one There will then be more than a tolerable propriety of speech in Christ's style a most exact critical notation of their being Arch-Bishops and withall a farther account of Tertullian's calling Polycarp a Bishop of Smyrna though he were Arch-Bishop just as the Archangels in Daniel are more than once called Angels in the Revelation 7. For a close of this mater they are pleased to adde their Character not over-benigne of those by whom this device as they style it was found out for the honour of Archpiscopacy that they did aspire unto that dignity 8. If hereby be meant the Lord Primate of Ireland in his discourse of the Original of Bishops this character can have no propriety in it he having quietly enjoyed that dignity many yeares before the writing hereof If it be designed for a reproach to me I shall elude the blow by not thinking it such For as at a time when Episcopacy it selfe was by the Parliament abolisht and that Act of severity actually put in execution it had been a great folly in any to hope that he should ever attaine to that Office of Dignity in the Church and what ever other follies I have been guilty of truly that was none of them so I thinke there could not a point of time more commodiously have been chosen in the space of above 1600 yearâ—s wherein a man might have better secured a Discourse for Bishops and Metropolitanes from the Censure of aspiring to either of those Dignities that was that wherein that Book was published 9. To this if I adde by way of retortion that it is evident that they which write this Jus Divinum Ministerii Evangeliei doe aspire every one of them to their
part of a Ruling Presbytery which their brethren that have not those Ambitions are farre from thinking to have any Divine Stamp upon it I shall have given an account of the unskilfulnesse of their Reproaches as well as of the invalidity of their Answers 10. As for the feare which their Discourse on this matter suggests to their more moderate brethren that if a Jus Divinum be stampt on Archbishops and Primates and Patriarchs they may be forced by the same proportion to put a Divine stamp upon the Pope himselfe I perswade my selfe that I have given the ingenious reader a satisfactory account of the inconsequence hereof in a Discourse of Schisme to which I shall refer him if he need or desire farther trouble or direction in this businesse Section XIX Of Division into Parishes and Vnion into Diocesses Of Diocesan Bishops in the Apostles dayes Elders in every Church Act. 14. Elders of the Church Act. 20. That place vindicated from exception AFter all this they adde a fourth whether Answer or suppletory Consideration for the conclusion of this Discourse concerning the Asian Angels and I shall follow them to that more cheerfully because it lookes like a conclusion 2. It is this That it can never be provid that these Asian Angels were Bishops in a Praelaticall sense much lesse Arch-Bishops and Metropolitanes For it is believed upon all parts that believers in great Cities were not divided into set and fixt Congregations and parishes till long after the Apostles dayes and that Parishes were not united into Dioceses till 260. years after Christ And therefore sure we are that there could not be Diocesane Churches and Diocesane Bishops formerly so called in the Apostles dayes These Angels were Congregationall not Diocesan In the beginning of Christianity the number of Believers even in the greatest Cities were so few that they might well meet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the same place And these were called the Chuâ—ch of the City and therefore to ordaine Elders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are all one in Scripture 3. To the praeface of this conclusion that it cannot be proved it is againe very sufficient to answer that when a proposition hath already been proved so farre that no answer hath been rendred which at all satisfies or invalidates the force of the proofes it is very unlike Artists to say that it cannot be proved Nay although some inconvenience were producible which would presse our assertion yet the old rule would require it's place incommodum non solvit argumentum the mention of an inconvenience insuing doth not take off the force of an argument 4. But we need not that warinesse here the reason which is here annext to prove that it cannot be proved is of no force against us For 1. as Congregations and Parishes are synonimous in their style so I yeild that Believers in great Cities were not at first divided into Parishes while the number of the Christians in a City was so small that they might well assemble in the same place and so needed no partitions or divisions 5. But what disadvantage is this to us who affirme that one Bishop not a College of Presbyters presided in this one Congregation and that the Believers in the Region and Villages about did belong to the care of that single-Bishop of the City-church May not these be ruled by a Bishop as well before as after the division into Parishes Or is this division more necessary to the Government by one Bishop in each City than to the Government of more Presbyters in every City In all reason the division of this one into severall Parishes should make Presbyters more necessary after than before such division that each Parish might have one Presbyter to officiate among them in things of daily use and upon that account I suppose it was that when the number of Believers was so farre increased that all the Christians of a City could not meet commodiously in one place and when the Regions and Villages so abounded with Proselytes that in respect of them also it was necessary then the Bishop of each City thought fit to const tute Presbyters in our moderne notion of them many in every City and many in every Region one in every Village though as yet the word Parish in our moderne sense was not come into the World 6. And so this is farre from being Argumentative against us it is rather usefull to confirme what is asserted by us that it is against the whole Scheme which the Scriptures or first writers give us of Churches to imagine that in every City there was by the Apostles a College of Presbyters constituted when as they agree to assure us a Bishop and his Deacon were sufficient at the first so thin Plantations 7. So againe when they take it for granted that Parishes were not united into Dioceses till 260. yeares after Christ I shall aske 1. whether they were sooner divided into Classes c. and if not what they have gained to their Jus Divinum by this observation 8. But then secondly 't is cleare that there might be Dioceses before this division into Parishes in our moderne notion For what is a Diocesâ— but a Church in a City with the Suburbs and Territorie or Region belonging to it And this certainly might be and â—emaine under the Government of a single Bishop as well before as after any more minute distributions into such as we now call Parishes 9. For it is one thing for the Church of this City to be divided from the Church of every other City another thing for the same Church to be divided into many Assembles The first is it which is required for the setting up of Government and of any such Church so bounded there may be a Bishop and that whole Church shall be his Diocese and so he a Diocesaâ— Bishop though as yet this Church be not subdivided into more severall Assemblies 10. And therefore when they adde that there could not be Diocesan Churches and Bishops formerly so called in the Apostles dayes unlesse they have some little aequivocation in the word Diocesan It is most certaine they have no reason on which to found their confidence For that there was a Church in each City and it's territory howsoever governed by one or more is most certaine and equally affirmed by them and us and equally their interest and ours that it be affirmed As for the use of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that hath oft varied and hath sometimes been of a larger sometimes of a narrower signification and so hath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the originall of our Parish also but I hope our contentions must not be alwayes about words when the matter is sufficiently agreed on among us and the words sufficiently explained to expresse that matter 11. And therefore when they adde these Angels were congregationall not Diocesan the reply is obvious they were every of them Angels of a Church in a City having authority over
is onely to state the Question betwixt us which is all the while no more but this whether Tertullian and Irenaeus that call Polycarpe and Onesymus Bishop of Smyrna and Ephesus meane Bishops 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in a peculiar sense or in a generall phrase as all Presbyters are called Bishops And this I acknowledge to be the onely question between us and if Bishops doe signifie Bishops I cannot doubt but the cause is by them adjudged on our side And why it should not they have to conclude onely this offer of argument that Bishops and Presbyters had all one name in the Apostles dayes and long after in Irenaeus's time 55. I am truly weary of the length of this Chapter and cannot but by consent have some compassion on the Reader and therefore I shall bring the matter to this short issue This reason of theirs is no reason unlesse the word Bishop both in the Apostles dayes and long after Irenaeus's time signified a Presbyter in our moderne notion For if both 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bishop and Elder signified Bishop in our notion this againe gives the cause to us from them And upon these termes I am content to leave it if ever they finde in Irenaeus that Episcopus signifies a Presbyter in our moderne notion I will confesse them Conquerours but this they have not offered here to doe and I have some moderate assurance they never will And so much for that Chapter CHAP. II. Of the equivalence of the words Bishop and Elder in the New Testament Section I. Foure sorts of equivalence of these words proposed THe next place where I find my selfe call'd forth is about the midst of their seventh Chapter toward the bottom of pag. 92. Onely for the conclusion of this Discourse c. For although in the former part of that Chapter they undertake to vindicate their chiefe proofes of Scripture Act. 20. 17 28. Phil. 1. 1. 1 Tim. 3. 1 Pet. 5. and to make replies to the Answers given to them and although it is most certaine that in the Dissertations every of those places are answered and shew'd to be fully reconcileable with our praetensions for Praelacy yet they have not pleased to take any notice of what is there said which if they had done I might without insolence undertake to shew that it had prevented all appearance of force in any of their Replies And therefore being by this meanes perfectly freed from all obligation to view any Paragraph of that former part of the Chapter and having already said somewhat to the chiefe of their places Act. 20. and fore-seeing a fit opportunity for the rest I shall for mine own and the Readers ease punctually expect and obey the summons appeare when I am call'd before them but no sooner avert their charge and not multiply debates above what is necessary Thus then they begin that there is a Doctor a high Praelatist c. That in a late Booke of his hath undertaken to make out these two great Paradoxes 1. That wheresoever the word Bishop is used in the New Testament it is to be taken in a praelaticall sense 2. That wheresoever the word Presbyter is used in the New Testament it is to be understood not of a mere Presbyter but of a Bishop properly so called And whereas we say that the Scripture-Bishop is nothing else but a Presbyter and that there was no Bishops distinct from Presbyters in the Apostles dayes this Author on the contrary saith that the Scripture-Presbyter is a true Bishop and that there were no single and meere Presbyters in the Apostles dayes For our parts we do not thinke it necessary to take a particular survey of all that is said in justification of these Paradoxes onely we desire it may be considered There is so much of the sense of some passages in the Dissertations set downe in these words that I am forced to believe that I am the Author here charged for these two Paradoxes That they are so styled by those who are contrary minded and who have assumed a power which if either of these propositions be true they must be obliged to part with I cannot thinke strange And if I should style their assertions as perfectly Paradox i.e. as contrary to all the antients sense or Doctrine in this matter when they say that the Scripture-Bishop is nothing else but a Presbyter c. this were certainly an introduction fit to be confronted to theirs as being equally argumentative But because this verball eloquence hath little of efficacy in it and will never be a meanes of evincing the truth of our pretensions by affirming the contrary to be errours or Paradoxes and because what is affixt to me is not intirely my sense though it recite it in some part and approach neere to it I shall here begin with a briefe relation of what is affirmed by the Dissertations in this matter and then inquire what is here produced to invalidate it Dissert 4. c. 6. the method leading to the consideration of the word Bishop and Elder in the Scripture the first thing taken notice of was the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or equivalence of these words in the opinion of many To which purpose Theodoret Chrysostome Oecumenius and St Hierome are cited as favourers of this opinion but this with some difference of the one from the other And for the distinct stating of the Question foure senses were set downe wherein it was possible that this equivalence of the words might be understood 1. That both Bishop and Elder should signifie one and the same viz. a Bishop in our moderne notion 2. That both should signifie the same thing viz. a Presbyter 3. That both of them should signifie promiscuously sometimes a Bishop sometimes a Presbyter i. e. that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should sometime signifie a Bishop sometime a Presbyter and in like manner 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifie sometime a Bishop sometime a Presbyter 4. That the word Bishop should alwayes signifie a singular Bishop and the word Elder sometimes a Bishop and sometimes a Presbyter Of these foure senses of the equivalence of these words it was sure no error to conclude that they were not all of them true each being exclusive of the other three and although some of the antients might be brought in favour to one more than to the other yet this was eminently observable that those that favoured that species which is most for the Presbyterians interest to be accepted doe yet assert the cause of the Prelatists as confidently as any So Theodoret who seemes most to assert the second species doth yet propugne the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the superiour dignity of Bishops above Presbyters and affirmes Those who were in his time called Bishops the Singular praefects of Cities to have been styled Apostles in the Scripture-times and that Epaphroditus was called so by St. Paul as being Bishop of the Philippians and so saith he
Titus was Apostle of the Cretanes and Timothy of the Asiaticks So when Chrysostome and Theophylact and Oecumenius approve of the third species and affirmes Bishops to be called Presbyters and Deacons also and on the contrary Presbyters to be called Bishops yet of each of them it is notorious that they asserted the superiority of Bishops over Presbyters not onely in their owne but in the Apostles time And to that purpose the concession and testimony of Peter Moulin was produced that the most famous Bishops of the antient Church Chrysostome c. did not thinke it any diminution to their dignity that the words Bishop and Elder were at first conceived to be used in the same sense which observation being premised and thereby the Prelatists pretensions competently secured which soever of those senses should be accepted so long as they that were authors of the assertions be permitted to give their owne interpretation of them It was then I thought perfectly seasonable and safe to discusse the question freely and to set downe what to me appeared most probable without prejudice to any other dissenter and upon those termes and not otherwise these two propositions were offered to farther consideration of learned men 1. That the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Scripture constantly signifie a singular Bishop 2. That the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 either constantly signifies a Bishop also or else commonly a Bishop and sometime but rarely a Presbyter These are somewhat different from the two paradoxes affixt to me And in these termes I shall now resume them againe and cleare them to be no paradoxes And begin first with the former of them concerning the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bishop And this is already done 1. By considering the originall notation and use in the Old Testament of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 then by going over every place in the New Testament where the word Bishop is used Section II. Of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 THe word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 naturally signifying an overseer and used by Aristides for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Governour the same that Justinian calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Ruler of Provinces and Metropoles and by Cicero ad Articum rendred speculator custos one that lookes to and guards a Province and so fitly styled Angel who 's generally deemed to have those two Offices and is in the Scripture called an eye and vulgarly a guardian doth in the Greeke of the Old Testament sometime render the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is common to God Lord Angel and generally denotes Dominion sometimes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Praefect or Commissary intrusted with the administration of some affaire whether in army as a Commander Numb 31. 14. in Mechanicall working as a Master-workeman 2 Chron. 34. 12. 17. in a City a Ruler or Prince Nehem. 11. 9. peculiarly the chiefe of the Priests v. 10 in the Ministery of the Temple as Eleazar the Ruler of the Levites Num. 4. 16. and lastly in the House of the Lord the Ruler set over that 2 Kin. 11. 18. And the result of all this is that it generally signifies an office of charge and dignity and power and superiority over others all one with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which are all used to render the same word that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth and so is most fitly qualified to signifie the like viz. a praefecture in the Christian Church under the New Testament Accordingly there we finde it applied 1. to Christ himselfe the Bishop of our soules who though he ministred to his Disciples yet owned the title of Lord and Master as that which from them belonged to him Joh. 13. 13. Secondly to the Apostles Act. 1. 20. And for all other places where it is used it is evidently capable of a sense very agreeable to these premisses being never once used in the New Testament but where it will be very commodious to render it Bishop in our moderne notion of the word for a singular prefect in each Church not a collegue in a Presbytery This is at large shew'd by a survey of every of those places First that of Act. 20. 28. where the Apostle takes leave and exhorts the Bishops set over the flock by the Holy Ghost They are there bid to feed the Church of God i.e. the Christians of the severall Cities of Asia or neer about Ephesus as was in the last Chapter evidenced out of Irenaeus auditor to Polycarpe made Bishop of Smyrna by St. John and therefore may well be resolved to be the singular Bishops of those Cities and not onely of the one City of Ephesus as was largely shewed in the last Chapter The second place is that of Phil. 1. 1. where after the mention of all the Saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi is added with the Bishops and Deacons where although some of the Greeke Commentators which at the same time assert Episcopacy do for that very reason because there could not be many Bishops in one City understand that place of Presbyters in our moderne notion and adde that the words Bishop and Presbyter yea and Deacon too were not as yet distinct but promiscuously used the one for the other here the word Bishops for Presbyters as elsewhere the Presbytery is used for Bishops 1 Tim. 4. 4. adding this reason because Presbyters ordeined not a Bishop And although many expedients were ready at hand to keepe the Text from being usefull to the Presbyterians in case it were granted that by Bishops the Presbyters were meant as that Epaphroditus their present Bishop as is acknowledged by Theodoret Chrysostome and Theophylact who are most favourable to that interpretation was with St. Paul at the writing that Epistle c. 4. 18. yet I have the authority of Epiphanius to affirme that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there signifies peculiarly Bishops and I doubt not but it may doe so referring it to all the Bishops of the severall Cities belonging to that Metropolis For such was Philippi both as the first-fruits of all Macedonia first converted to the Faith 2 Act. 16. 9. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a prime City of that Province of Macedon v. 12. of it selfe before it's conversion and so saith Photius distinctly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and accordingly Polycarps Epistle to them is inscribed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the whole province that belongs to Philippi In which there being diverse Cities and Bishops in them the Epistle to St. Paul is to be conceived written to them all as the Epistle to the Corinthians appeares to have been written to the Saints of all Achaia and being inscribed to Philippi was to be communicated to those others as the Epistle to the Colossians was to be communicated to the Laodicaeans Col. 4. 16. and that which the Laodicaeans had received whether as Tertullian seemes to believe that to the Ephesians or any other in like manner to
made use of but after another manner according to the Cities in which they kept their Courts or Assises as before was said of the Cities of Asia Accordingly when S. Paul first comes to Philippi St. Luke mentions it under the title of the prime City of the Province of Macedonia and is not that more to be heeded speaking so expresly of that City at that time then that Geographers description which no way discovers to what time it belongs and cannot belong to this time of the planting the faith at Philippi if S. Luke may be believed Secondly the same St. Luke saith of it at that time that it was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a colony of i.e. a City replenished by the Inhabitation of the Romanes And of those Colonies in chiefe Cities there is no question but they were especially chosen to be places of their Assises whither the Neighbouring Cities resorted for Justice and so were Metropoles in the civill accounts Thirdly of this City of Philippi 't is as evident that it was the first converted of all Macedonia and that from thence he went after to Thessalonica And so the right of Primogeniture which ordinarily gave claime to the Metropoliticall dignity in the Ecclesiasticall account as in the case of Antioch and Jerusalem appeares belonging to Philippi over and above the forementioned praecedence thereof in civill account there is no reason to doubt but this was a Metropoliticall Church an Elder Sister to Thessalonica and each a Mother to the Churches of lesser Cities of Macedonia that belonged to them According to which it is that Polycarpe in his Epistle mentions St. Pauls Epistles in the plurall written to these Philippians which learned men interpret of the Epistles to the Thessalonians and it cannot commodiously be understood any other way Sect. VIII A third Confession of Timothies being an Archbishop Of the qualifications 1 Tim. 3 2. belonging to Bishops Of the Bishops being worthy of double honour though he never preach Of the word and Doctrine Of the Presbytery 1 Tim. 4. Of Rebuking and receiving accusation against an Elder THe third Confession is that Timothy was Archbishop of Ephesus that when Paul sets downe the qualifications of Bishops though he mention none but such as are common to a Presbyter with a Bishop yet he is to be understood to speake of Bishops in a Praelaticall sense and not at all of Presbyters And when he saith the Elders that Rule well are worthy of double honour this is saith this Author the Bishops that Rule well thereby holding out this great errour that a Bishop that Ruleth well is worthy of double honour though he never preacheth And when St. Paul bids Timothy not neglect the gift that was given him by the laying on the hands of the Presbytery that is saith he of Episcopacy And when the Apostle chargeth him not to rebuke an Elder and not to receive an accusation against an Elder this is to be understood of Bishops saith he and not of meere Presbyters To this accumulative crime affirmed to be confest by me in so many particulars I answer by avowing my Confession thus farre 1. that I take Timothy to have been Bishop of Ephesus and conclude it from 1 Tim. 1. 3. then that Ephesus was a prime Metropolis of Asia from the testimonies of Pliny and Vlpian and generally the Church-writers And from those two put together I hope I may gaine liberty to confesse that Timothy was Archbishop of Ephesus Secondly That Paul 1 Tim. 3. 1 2. speaking of Episcopacy as of a good worke or office and the qualifications required in the person to be promoted to it speakes of a Bishop in the Praelaticall sense so I am sure Chrysostome doth understand him and the testimony was lately cited out of him and Theodoret that understands it otherwise yet applies it first to Bishops and saith on that occasion that their degree in the Church is superior to that of Presbyters And if no higher qualifications be required of a Bishop than are fit to be required of a Presbyter which yet I no where say and the argument taken from the no-other qualifications here specified than onely for the Bishop and the Deacon are of no force to induce it both because it is a negative argument and there is another reason for the omitting Presbyters because in this infancie of the Church there was not any such need of them the Bishop with his Deacon one or more were sufficient in every City and besides the qualifications assigned the Deacon may be common to him with the Presbyter as well as those assign'd the Bishop yet that is no prejudice to the superiority of the office or to my interpreting that Text of the Bishop For sure I may as conveniently say that the Bishop is named without the Presbyter at a time when there were Bishops but as yet no Presbyters in the Church and that when there were Presbyters instituted their qualifications were to be regulated by the rules given of Bishops as it can be imagined to be fitly said by them that the place is meant of Presbyters when the Apostle names Bishops expresly and when by many other evidences we know that then there were Bishops but by no footsteps can discerne that then there were Presbyters upon no other reason but that the qualifications are common to Presbyters Thirdly For the mention of the Elders that rule well 1 Tim. 5. 17. I doubt not but it may very commedicuoly be interpreted of the Bishops through all his Province for as there the style is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 praeside or rule so 't is certaine that in the use of the Church this was the title of the Bishops as hath formerly been shewed out of Justin Martyr and others and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 double honor 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the priviledge of Primogeniture being assigned as his portion is an evidence thereof And the inconvenience that is here urged against that interpretation is perfectly of no force For 1. if from hence it might be concluded that a Bishop is worthy of double honour though he never preacheth then from their interpreting it of the Presbyter it will as much follow to be their oâ—inion that the Presbyter is worthy of double honour though he never preach But then secondly the truth is that neither of these conclusions follow either the one or the other interpration for the first phrase of labouring in the word and the other of labouring in the doctrine which by these are confounded and so exprest undistinctly by preaching denote two severall things the former the planting of the faith where it is not yet received which is constantly exprest by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 preaching the Gospell and the word the latter signifies taking paines in a Church already gathered for the confirming and farther instructing of believers And then as he that doth one of these may yet possibly not doe both occasion not
the practice which in this particular he recommended to the Church And I must needs tell the Objectors that as meane an opinion as they seem to have of this work of visiting the sick I cannot but affirme on the contrary that if it were duely and advantagiously managed it were extreamely usefull and beneficiall to the good of Soules and as proper for a Bishop personally to performe when his other publick necessarie taskes wherein many more are concern'd and wherein he hath no proxies to supply his place permit as any one part of his divine office differing from the rest only in this and in that respect yeilding the precedence to them that other parts of his office are or may be at the same time extensive to many whilst each act of this is terminated in some one whose soul yet ought to be more pretious in his eyes than all other acquisitions in the world Accordingly it is in the Dissertations evidenced out of Polycarp's Epistle who was somewhat after the time of James the author of this Epistle that part of the Bishop's office it was then esteemed to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to visit all the sick in like manner as in Justin Martyr he is made the Curator of all that are in want the grand distributer of all the liberalities of the Church As for the onely objection that is here tendered against this interpretation of the place from the singalar 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Church not of the Churches the answer is obvious that this Epistle of James being written to all the Jewes in dispersion Jam. 1. 1. these could not make up any one particular Church of any single denomination but yet all conjoyne very fitly in that one Vniversal style of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Church In this respect we know 't is called the Catholick Epistle of James because written to the whole Church of the Jewes all the believers of that nation wheresoever disperst out of their Countrey Now these inhabiting in divers Cities it is as certaine there were divers Bishops in this circuit and so the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Elders of the Church are most commodiously set to expresse these severall Bishops belonging to this complexe body the Church of the dispersion Not that there were more of these in one City for that consideration would never have caused the plural expression because were there never so many the sick person needed not have called more at once and upon that score 〈◊〉 shall demand of them that argue from the number was every sick man in their opinion to call for the whole Presbytery â—or againe because there were not as many Churches as Elders but onely because these many particular Churches of which there was an equal number of Elders were very fitly comprehended under the one general 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Church in the singular number Sect. XI A last objection from Act. 21. 18. and 14. 3. and 11. 30. answered Elders for Rulers or Bishops THere yet remaines one sort of Objections more against these Paradoxes in these words Besides when it to said Act 21. 18. Paul went in with us unto James and all the Elders were present It is supposed by our Episcopall men that James was at this time Bishop of Jerusalem Now we demand who were these Elders were these also Bishops of Jerusalem will this answer consist with our brethrens judgement so likewise when it is said Act. 15 4. And when they were comâ— to Jerusalem they were received of the Church and of the Apostles and Elders we demand what is meant by the Church Is it not meant the Church of Jerusalem to which place they are said to come And if so then we askâ— farther what is meanâ— by the Elders Must it not be answered that by Elders are meant the Elders of Jerusalem And then let any man 〈◊〉 us how these Elders can be said to be Bishops in a Prelatical sense especially according to the sense of our brethren who make James to be at this time the onely Bishop of Jerusalem Adde farther It is said Act. 14. 3. Whâ—n Paul and Barnabas had ordained them Elders in every Church Act. 11. 30. They sent reliefe to the Elders c. Can any imagine that this reliefe was sent onely to Bishops and that Paul and Barnabas ordeined no Presbyters in any Church but only Bishops Is not this to offer manifest violence to the Scriptures and instead of upholding of Episcopacie is not this sufficient to render it odious and contemptible to all sober and godly and moderate Christians But we forbeare It seems we have still remaining another heape of inconvenient Confessions that we labour under And upon them more socratico they make their demands And although I might justly wonder why they which have reade the Dissertations and know what answer I give to every of their demands should be at the trouble to aske them againe yet because I am resolved not to be weary of attending them I shall answer them as punctually as they could wish and patiently support all the odium that will result from thence among all sober and godly and moderate Christians Here onely I desire two things may be remembred which have already been evidenced 1. that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elderâ— in the style of the Old Testament in the continued use of all languages being an expression of power and dignity is in the New Testament upon all reasonable accounts as properly applicable to the Rulers and Governours Ecclesiastical as the word Apostles or Bishops or Presidents or Rulers or any the like would be thought to be and withall very fit to expresse single Rulers in each particular Church in case any such may otherwise appeare to be mentioned in Scripture there being no propriety in the word or peculiarity in the usage of it to incline it to joynt power of Collegues ruling in common Accordingly evidences have been produced in the Dissertations to shew the continuance of this usage among Authors after the Scripture-time that it long remained in the language of the Antients Policarpe Papias Irenaeus Clemens Alexandrinus and Tertullian many of which are knowne and by the adversaries acknowledged to assert Episcopacy in our moderne sense and yet use the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elders to denote sometimes the Apostles sometimes the singular Bishops in each Church And therefore the affirming this one thing so attested and confirmed viz. that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may very conveniently be interpreted Bishops as oft as the circumstances of the Text will beare it will not I hope still be so unfoâ—tuâ—ate as to fall under the censure of Paradoxe and odious being indeed a plaine obvious observation which hath nothing of difficulty or harshnesse in it Having praemised this I shall onely adde that the Apostles being by all Praelatists I hope convincingly affirmed and proved to have ordeined Bishops in every City of Converts and
Justice would purchase a place to any we had commended him in a principall manner as Elder of the Church for so he is Here nine yeares after he had been Bishop and Archbishop of Lyons about the yeare of Christ 177. he is styled by those Letters Elder of the Church by which it appeares that in his time Elder was the title of Bishop in our Moderne sense and consequently so it may fitly signifie in his own writings and so must needs do there when 't is applied to those who were acknowleged Bishops at that time when by the Presbyterians acknowledgement Episcopacy was come in in that notion wherein we now understand it A second proofe of this is that what in one place out of Papias he saith of all the Seniores or Elders which in Asia converst with St. John that Clemens Alexandrinus who lived in the same time affirmes of the Bishops or Elders of Asia meaning by both of them the Bishops in our notion of the word Clemens Alexandrinus wrote his Stromata about the yeare 192. which is five yeares before Irenaeus Martyrdome in the 5. of Severus Now of this Clemens it is certaine 1. That he acknowleged the three Orders in the Church which he calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the three degrees or promotions in the Church of Bishops Presbyters Deacons and consequently must by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 understand Bishops in our moderne sense Secondly that when he makes the Relation of John's meeting with the Bishops of Asia which is the same matter which Irenaeus produceth out of Papias he calls them in the same period both Elders and Bishops indifferently For speaking of St. John he hath this passage 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Comming to a City not farre off and looking on the Bishop which was constituted over all seeing a young man he said This person I commit to thee And the Elder took him home brought him up baptized and at last gave him confirmation Here it is evident this Elder of Asia one of those which in Irenaeus conversed with Saint John is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Bishop constituted over all in that City and agreeably when Saint John comes back that way againe he calls to him by that title 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 O Bishop render us the depositum which both I and Christ delivered to thee in the presence of the Church over which thou art set Where againe he that is called Elder both by him and Irenaeus is also by him called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Bishop set over the Church And so that is a second evidence of it Thirdly In his Epistle to Victor Bishop of Rome he speakes of his Predecessors thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Elders which were set over the Church which thou rulest Anicetus Pius Hyginus and Telesphorus and lib. 3. cap. 3 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The blessed Apostles having founded and built the Church of Rome put the Episcopal office into the hands of Linus Anacletus succeeded him Clemens Anacletus Evarestus Clemens Alexander Evarestus then Xystus the sixt from the Apostles after him Telesphorus then Hyginus then Pius after him Anicetus after Anicetus Soter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Now in the twelfth place Eleutherus possesses the Bishoprick from the Apostles Here 1. it is evident that every one first named as Elders are yet single persons one succeding another 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 set over or ruling the Church of Rome Secondly That for twelve successions together they are by Irenaeus lookt upon all as of the same ranke succeeding one another and the first as well as the last called Bishop which must conclude it to be understood by him in such a notion as is equally competible to all and so must be in our moderne notion if the great Asserters of the Presbyterian cause say true that about the yeare 140. i. e. certainly before Elutherius was Bishop of Rome there were Bishops over Presbyters all the world over Lastly Irenaeus speaking of some unworthy voluptuous Elders expresseth their faults in such a manner as cannot fitly belong to any but Bishops Principalis concessionis tumore elati sunt they are puft up with the â—ride of the principall place the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the principall chair which as Bishops belonged to them â—or though it is as possible that Presbyters should be guilty of the pride the tumour and elation as that Bishops should be guilty of the same yet the occasion of it there mentioned the principalis consessio the chiefe place of dignity is peculiar to the one and not reconcileable with the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or equality of the other These evidences have readily offered themselves to shew what Irenaeus meanes by Presbyteri when he useth that and Bishops promiscuously viz. by both Bishops in our moderne notion and he that shall reade over that author diligently and compare his dialect with Polycarpe and Papias with whom he accords the former using 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for Bishops as hath largely been insisted on and the latter for Apostles and Bishops single Governors of each Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and elsewhere 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Andrew Peter Aristion John Marke all Elders will doubtlesse finde many more proofes that thus he used the word and I shall adventure to undertake meet with no one indication to the contrary Sect. V. Testimonies of Tertullian Seniores Majores natu for Bishops so in Firmilian AS for Tertullian I shall need say no more but that it is the confession of the great Patron of Presbyterians that he doth aperte tueri communiusu receptam ordinis in Episcopos Presbyteros Diaconos distinctionem Openly defend the received common distinction of the Ecclesiastick order into Bishops Presbyters and Deacons and he that can yet doubt of it let him examine his citations de Praescript cap. 41. de Baptisme cap 17. de Monogam cap. 11. de Fuga c. 11. And that de Baptismo as high cleare as that which was most quarrell'd with in Ignatius Dandi Baptismum jus habit summus sacerdos qui est Episcopus dein Presbyteri Diaconi non tamen sine Episcopi authoritate propter honorem Ecclesiae quo salvo salva pax est The Bishop hath the right of giving Baptisme after him the Presbyters and Deacons yet not without the authority of the Bishop for the honour of the Church which being preserved peace is preserved So that of him it is as cleare as of Irenaeus or Clemens that he must understand Bishop in our Moderne