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.
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
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
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
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