of St. John who we know was after his returne from banishment affixt to Asia and seated at Ephesus the chiefe Metropolis there to superintend in the Jewish part of the Asian Church over all the Bishops and Metropolitans there 10. To this I might adde fiftly that the Bishops in every City were successors of the Apostles as is largely deduced Diss 3. c. 3. Sect. 14. c. which they could not truly be if the Apostles whom they succeeded were not in vested with that power wherein they succeeded them i. e. were not first Bishops before them But I shall not inlarge of this having no need of more evidences in this matter 11. Fourthly therefore when it is added that if the Apostles be affirmed to be properly Bishops this were to degrade the Apostles and to make their office ordinary and perpetuall This is but a shortnesse of discourse of which a very few words will suffice to admonish any for there is no more strength in that consequence than there would be in affirming that such an one is a Man therefore he is not a living Creature or that he that saith he is a living Creature degrades him from being a man For as to that of ordinary and perpetuall 't is no way inconvenient that the Apostles who had somewhat temporary and extraordinary for the first planting of Churches in respect of which especially they were called Apostles might also have somewhat which was of ordinary perpetuall use in the Church wherein others might and should succeed them and that is it unquestionably which wee meane by the word Bishops when we ascribe it to them or any of them or to Christ himselfe the source and originall Copy of that power in the Church 12. Fiftly when another inconvenience is accumulated on this much to the former purpose but in more words this were to exalt the Bishop above his degree and make him an Apostle end to make the Apostle a Bishop 1. It is evident that if the forementioned exception were true viz. That it were the degrading the Apostle it could not farther be truly said that it were the exalting the Bishop above his degree for supposing one to be above the other the degrading one would make the other eâ—uall to him without any new act of exalting him if the Apostle have already descended to the Bishop sure the Bishop need not cannot ascend to the Apostle I cannot goe up staires to him who hath prevented me by his dignation or misfortune and is already come or fallen downeâ— to me Secondly therefore this makes not the Bishop an Apostle which is a degree higher than he though in respect of the Episcopall power common to them with the Aposles it is nothing strange in the Antient Writers for the first Bishops of the Churches James the Bishop of Jerusalem Thaddaeus Luke Barnabas Marke Timothy Titus Clemens Ignatius to be called Apostles as is evidenced at large in the Dissertations but onely supposes the Apostle to be a Bishop which he may well be as the greater conteineth the lesse though the Bishop be no Apostle as it is confest that the lesse containes not the greater 13. And lastly for the citation out of Dr. Whitaker I have no directions to the place which may inable me to examine it And I know circumstances of the context or the designe of the speech may much alter it from what it signifies to me at my reading it thus cited But if it be distinctly thus and incapable of a more commodious interpretation I cannot consent to the truth of it or comprehend upon what grounds of reason he should so severely censure those Scriptures and Fathers which have been produced to affirme that the Apostles were Bishops and particularly St. John and St. Peter And indeed when it falls out that each of those two Apostles peculiarly calls himselfe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an Elder or as they render it Presbyter I shall demand Did either of those speake properly or no If they did were either of those little distant from mad-men If so I shall be content to be under any censure in their company And therefore if they spake not so properly I shall be content with them to have spoken improperly also But if Apostles may be called Presbyters without any of these inconveniences of degradation in them any insâ—lence in the Presbyter or madnesse in the Speaker my onely remaining Quaere is why they might not without all this adoe be called Bishops also meaning by Bishops as I now meane For I am sure that is the same thing that I understand by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elder in those three places and they who differ from me herein do yet understand it of Presbyters and so had said in the second consideration expresly that St. John calls himselfe a Presbyter and then all the spice of madnesse consists in this thinking a Bishop capable of that exaltation that a Presbyter in perfect sobriety is capable of And so much for the third consideration Section VI. Of the word Angel and Starre pretended to be common to all Ministers Of Messenger and Embassadour The singularity of the word Angel THe fourth consideration is That the word Angel which is the title given to those supposed Bishops doth not import any peculiar jurisdiction or praeeminence but is a common name to all Ministers and so is used in Scripture For all Ministers are Gods Messengers and Embassadours sent for the good of the elect and therefore the name being common to all Ministers why should we thinke that there should be any thing spoken to one Minister that doth not belong to all The same may be said of the word Starre which is also a title given to those supposed Metropolitans It is evident that all faithfull Ministers are called Starres in Scripture whose duty is to shine as lights unto the Churches in all purity of Doctrine and holinesse of conversation There is nothing in these titles that argue these Ministers to be Bishops in our brethrens sense Insomuch as had they not been called Bishops by some authors that succeeded them who spake of former times in the language of their owne times this way of arguing would have been counted ridiculous 2. â—o this consideration I might if it were needfull reply 1. That the word Angel is no where used for any other Officer or Minister in the Church save onely the Prophets such as Haggai c. 1. 13. and John Baptist Mat. 11. 10. and the chiefe Priest Mal. 2. 7. 3. Secondly that as to the words Messenger and Embassador there is in ordinary speech some considerable difference betweene them the latter having in it a connotation of dignity sustaining the person of the King from whom he is sent immediately which is not applicable to the former And agreeably when it is used of St. Paul and Timothy in whose name that Epistle is written 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 wee are Embassadors 2 Cor. 5. 20. there is added 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
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
the gainsayers No obligation lying upon him by the Lawes of these agones to use those arguments and no other nor otherwise improved which all other writers of that side have done before him For if this were the manner of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the legail combate to what end should any second writing on the same subject ever appeare to the World That which had been formerly said needed not to be transcribed and said againe but either the booke might be Re-printed or translated into a language more intelligible as I have here been fame oft to doe And though I might truly say that for those more minute considerations or conjectures wherein this Doctor differs from some others who have written before him as to the manner of interpreting some few Texts he hath the suffrages of many the learnedst men of this Church at this day and as farre as he knowes of all that imbrace the same cause with him yet I doe not thinke it necessary to prove my agreement with others of my brethren by this onely medium It being certaine that they who believe the same conclusion upon severall mediums or wayes of inferring it are in that and may be in all other conclusions at perfect accord and unity among themselves All that I can conclude from this and the former consideration the double charge laid on me of contrariety to antiquity and other asserters of Episcopacy is onely this that the authors of them are ill pleased that I use any other arguments or answers but what they were willing to assigne me otherwise if there had been lesse not more truth or evidence in my way of defending the cause they would have had the greater advantage against me and I doubt not have been in the space of three yeares at leisure to have observed it Section V. Inconveniencies objected and answer'd Of more Bishops in one City No Presbyters in the Apostles dayes The no Divine right of the Order of Presbyters BUt they are in the third place pleased to object some inconveniences which the defending of these paradoxes must necessarily bring upon me And to these I shall more diligently attend First say they he that will defend these Paradoxes must of necessity be forced to grant that there were more Bishops than one in a City in the Apostles dayes which is to betray the cause of Episcopacy and to bring downe a Bishop to the ranke of a Presbyter To this I reply by absolute denying of this consequence for supposing the scripture-Scripture-Bishop to be alwayes a Bishop and so the Scripture Elder also how can it follow from thence that there are more such Bishops in any one City T is most evident that this is no way inferr'd upon either or both of my assertions nor is here one word added to prove it is to which I might accommodate any answer T is on the contrary most manifest that whensoever I find mention of Bishops or Elders in the plurall as Act. 20. Phil. 1. c. I interpret them of the Bishops of Asia and the Bishops of Macedonia Bishops of Judaea c. and render my reasons of doing so and consequently affirme them to be the Bishops of divers sure that is not of one Cities The second inconvenience is that I must be forced to grant that there were no Bishops over Presbyters in the Apostles days for if there were no Presbyters there could be no Bishops over Presbyters Here is an evident mistake for I no where say that there were no Presbyters in the Apostles dayes but onely that in the Apostles writings the word Bishops alwayes signifies Bishops and the word Elders either never or but rarely Presbyters Now besides that it is possible for those to be in the time of the Apostles writing which yet for want of occasion are not mentioned in those writings and I that love not negative arguments à testimonio should never have thought fit to conclude there were no Presbyters within the time wherein the severall Bookes of Scripture were written upon that one argument because I could not find them mentioned there besides this I say T is certaine that the Apostles times are somewhat a larger period than the time of the Apostles writings and therefore that what is spoken onely of the later was not meant to be extended to the former For 1. the Apostles continued alive some time after writing their Epistles and secondly some of the Apostles survived others John of whom Christs will was intimated that he should tarry and not die till after the comming of Christ and that Kingdom of his commenced in the destruction of the Jews did accordingly live till Trajanes time and by that time I thinke it probable that the number of believers daily increasing there were as the wants of the Church required Presbyters ordained in many Churches And accordingly in the Dissert p. 229. when I speak of this matter I expresly except S. John and p. 211. I make use of a testimony of Clemens Alexandrinus on purpose to conclude that this Apostle ordein'd Presbyters in Asia after his returne from the Island to which he was banished 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. and to the same matter I elsewhere apply that of Ephiphanius out of the profoundest i.e. antientest Records that as Moses and Aaron tooke to them first the Princes of the people and at length the Sanhedrim of the seventy Elders so the Apostles first constituted Bishops and in processe of time Presbyters also when occasion required as the Bishops assistants and Councell and that upon account of this Analogy with the Sanhedrim they were styled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elders And Ignatius making mention of Presbyters as of a middle degree in the Church betwixt Bishops and Deacons in his i. e. in Trajan's time and that in his Epistles to severall of those Asian Churches Smyrna Ephesus Magnesia Philadelphia Trallis I thinke the argument of great validity to conclude that in that Province that Apostle had in his life time instituted this middle order And therefore I that had so carefully prevented was not to be charged with this crime of affirming there were no Presbyters or Bishops over Presbyters which certainly there were if there were Presbyters under them in the Apostles dayes And third inconvenience they adde that by consequence I must affirme that Ordo Presbyteratus is not Jure Divino But that is no more consequent to my assertion than it was my assertion that there were no Presbyters in the Apostles dayes and therefore I that am guiltlesse of the assertion cannot be charged with the consequents of it John I know was an Apostle and John I believe ordained Presbyters and thence I doubt not to conclude the Apostolicall institution i.e. in effect the Divine right of the order of Presbyters though not of the government of the Church by Presbytery and so I am still cleare from the guilt of that crime which the worst of Papists would abhominate which they
last charge is more severe than any of the former that these paradoxes as they stile them are contrary to the very letter of the Scripture as we have made it evident in our arguments against the Jus Divinum of Episcopacy and would farther manifest it if we thought it necessary This I confesse of contrariety to the very letter of the Scripture rightly understood I lookt upon as so high a charge that I verily expected somewhat extraordinary to binde it on me and I suddenly resolved as I read the first words of that Section to examine those Scriptures that should now be produced ponderingly and exactly and either confesse my owne conviction or give competent reasons why I was not convinced by them But I soon found my expectations frustrated for as here is no one such Scripture mentioned so for their arguments against the Jus Divinum of Episcopacy I know not where to seek them and never heard and verily believe there is no such thing that they had formerly written any such Book against Bishops wherein the Dissertations or any assertions of mine therein were so much as arraign'd by them much lesse evidenced to be contrary to the very letter of Scripture If I had I assure them I should then have been as ready to have made my reply as now I have been to attend them thus farre And for their evidencing this in any tract publisht by them before the Dissertations were written by which notwithstanding the Dissertations were to be concluded I have no reason to thinke that to be their meaning because these assertions of mine are by them affirmed to be Paradoxes contrary to all that have ever written in defence of Episcopacy and therefore could not unlesse it were by divination be taken notice of and prevented by them After they had exprest their opinion that it was not necessary for them farther to manifest the contrariety of my Paradoxes to the very letter of the Scripture they yet farther proceed in these words For when the Apostle saith James 5. 14. Is any man sick among you let him call for the Elders of the Church who is there that can be perswaded to believe that all these Elders were Bâ—shops in the sense that Bishops are taken in in our dayes Is this the pâ—oper Worke of Bishops to visit the sick And besides if the Apostle by Elders had meant Bishops in that sense he would have said let him call for the Elders of the Churches not of the Church unlesse our brethren will say that there were divers Bishops in every Church in the Apostles dayes in which there were many sick persons What the For in the front here signifies I shall not goe about to conjecture The antecedents would incline me to believe that it pretends to introduce a reason which might make it evident that my assertions are contrary to the very letter of Scripture But that sure it doth not any way attempt or appeare to doe unlesse the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elders of the Church be supposed here to signifie Presbyters in our moderne notion of the word But then that is so farre from being granted that it is knowne to be the onely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the matter of question betwixt us all this while and so was to be proved not supposed or presumed in this matter But bating them this begging of the Question I shall proceed to satisfie their wonderment that I should goe about to perswade any that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elders in this place of Saint James were Bishops in that sense that we now understand and use the word And 1. I shall not doubt to avow that for all that space that in any Church there were no other officers ordained but onely the Bishop and Deacon it must of necessity be resolved the proper worke of Bishops to visit the sicke That there was at the first when the Faith was but thin planted such a time hath already been evidenced out of Clemens Romanus and the profoundest antequities that Epiphanius could meet with And that then this office must either be neglected or performed by either Bishop or Deacon will not need any farther proofe As for the the Deacons in their institution we finde not that to be any part of their office and indeed the suitablenesse of absolution to that state of dangerous sicknesse and the mention of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his having committed sins and the command of giving it in case he be qualified for it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 absolvetur ei absolution shall be given him doth render the Deacon incompetent for that worke and so where there are no Presbyters must needs divolve it on the Bishop And this account hath more than probability no lesse than perfect evidence in it if we onely suppose what hath been so oft cleared from the Antients to be matter of fact that where the number of believers was small and none qualified for the office of Presbyters there the Apostles constituted no more but a Bishop and a Deacon in each City For whilst this was the state of that City I shall suppose a man sick and by the force of S. James's exhortation desirous of absolution c. Who is there supposeable in that City to give it him but the Bishop And whom else can he call to him for this purpose And then who can doubt but this is the worke in it selfe very agreeable and in this supposed case peculiar and proper to the Bishop so that unlesse this supposition be false nay impossible to be true I may safely say this was or might be the Bishops worke to visit the sick c. And indeed if it were not how could it be by the Bishop when other parts of his office became his fuller employment committed to the Presbyter For 1. he could not commit this to others if he first had it not in himselfe and Secondly this was the onely reason of ordaining inferiour officers in the Church that part of the Bishop's taske might be performed by them as when the whole burthen which was too heavy for Moses was distributed among other men which in this particular could not be if before this assignation of assistents it were not originally the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 worke or proper taske of the Bishop To this may be farther added the reall dignity because necessary charity of this performance of visiting the sick c. and this arising both from the intimation of Gods owne finger pointing out this a most agreeable season for all spirituall admonition and comfort a molle tempus fandi wherein a word seasonably spoken may most probably find the due reception and wherein the prayers and blessing of the most Apostolical person or the most highly and justly dignified in the Church in the favour of God may come in most opportunely in this respect we see in that place that the prayers of the great Prophet Elias are made use of by S. James to exemplifie
notion And yet even by him these of this uppermost degree are called Seniores and Majores natu Elders Praesident probati quique Seniores the Elders praeside Apol. c. 39. and of the Bishops of Rome the series of whom he had brought downe to Anicetus lib. 3. contr Marcion cap. 9. he expresses them by Majores natu successors of the Apostles in his Book written in verse against Marcion And there will be lesse wonder in this when it is remembred that after this in Saint Cyprian's times who hath been sufficiently evidenced to speake of Bishops in our moderne notion of them Firmilian Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia in vulgar style calls them Seniores and Praepositi Elders and Provosts in his Epistle to Cyprian and againe Praesident Majores natu c. the Elders praeside evidently meaning the Bishops by those titles And so much be spoken in returne to what they have objected from these two Antients Irenaeus and Tertullian supposing that I have competently performed the taske by them imposed on the Praelatists shewed that the Bishops spoken of by them were Bishops over Presbyters and by them understood to be so Sect. VI. Saint Jerom's Testimony of Bishops c. by Apostolicall Tradition Consuetudo opposed to Dominica dispositio Saint Jerom's meaning evidenced by many other Testimonies to be that Bishops were instituted by the Apostles So by Panormitan also The Testimonies of Isidore c. the Councel of Aquen and of Leo vindicated Of Ischyras's Ordination The testimony of the Synod ad Zurrium and of the 4th Councel of Carthage IN the next place I am to proceed to that of Saint Hierome in his 85. Epistle ad Euagrium the unanswerablenesse of which I am affirmed to make matter of Triumph over D. Blondel and Walo Massalinus seeming to say that it never can be answered whereas say they if I had been pleased to cast an eye upon the vindication written by Smectymnuus I should have found this answer What this answer is we shall see anon In the meane it will be necessary to give a briefe account what it was which is called a triumphing over these two learned men And first it is sufficiently knowne what advantages the defenders of Presbyter◠conceive themselves to have from that one Antient writer the Presbyter Saint Hierome From him they have the interpretation of those Scriptures which they thinke to be for their use as that the word Bishop and Presbyter are all one in several texts of Scripture and both signifie Presbyters and that the Apostles at first designed ut communi Presbyterorū concilio Ecclesiae gubernarentur that the Churches should be governed by the common Councel of Presbyters and that it so continued till upon the dissentions which by this meanes arose in the Church it was judged more prudent and usefull to the preserving of unity ut unus superponeretur reliquis that one should be set over the rest and all the care of the Church belong to him And this saith Hierome in toto Orbe decretum decreed and executed over the whole world By whom this was conceived by him to be thus decreed he gives us not to understand in that place nor in what point of time he thought it was done but leaves us to collect both from some few circumstances as 1. that it was after Schismes entred into the Church and one said I am Paul I of Apollos c. And if it were immediately after that then the Presbyterians will gaine but little by this Patron For his whole meaning will be that the Apostles first put the Government of each Church into the hands of many but soon saw the inconvenience of doing so and the Schisme and ruptures consequent to it and changed it themselves and setled one singular Bishop in the whole power of Government in every Church to which very fitly coheres what Clement had said that lest new contentions should arise about this singular dignity and authority who should succeed to it they made a roll or Catalogue of those which in vacancies should succeed in each Church That this was not in Hierome's opinion done thus early in the Apostles time the Presbyterians think they may conclude from what he saith on Tit. 1. Episcopi noverint se magis consuetudine quam dispositionis Dominicae veritate Presbyteris esse Majores Let Bishops know that their greatnesse and superiority over Presbyters is held rather by custome than by Christs having disposed it so But it is very possible that this may not prove the conclusion which is thought to be inferred by it For here Consuetudo Custome as opposed to Christs disposition may well signifie the Practice of the Church in the later part of the Apostles times and ever since to S. Hierome's days and that may well be severed from all command or institution of Christs so Jerom's opinion may well be this that Christ did not ordain this superiority of one above another but left all in common in the Apostles hands who within awhile to avoid Schism put the power in each Church in the hands of some one singular person And that this was Hierome's meaning I thought my selfe in charity to him obliged to thinke both because in this sense his words would better agree with the universal affirmation of all Orthodoxe Christians that before him and after him too unlesse those few that took it on his credit speake of this matter and also because if this be not his sense he must needs be found to contradict himselfe having elsewhere affirmed that the three degrees of Bishops Presbyters and Deacons in the Church were of Apostolicall tradition i. e. by the Apostles themselves delivered to the Church And now before I proceed I desire the ingenuous Reader who is contrary minded to consider what he can object to this conclusion of mine thus inferr'd concerning S. Hierome's opinion and consequently what probability there is that the Presbyterians cause should be superstructed on any Testimony of S. Hierome supposing what I am next to demonstrate that the three orders are by him acknowledged to be delivered from the Apostles And this is evident in his Epistle to Euagrius where having againe delivered the substance of what hath been now cited from his notes on Tit. 1. he yet concludes Et ut sciamus-traditiones Apostolicas sumptas de veteritestamento Quod Aaron filii ejus atque Levitae in templ◠fuerunt hoc sibi Episcopi Presbyteri Diaconi in Ecclesiâ vendicent That we may know that the Apostles traditions are taken out of the Old Testament we have this instance that what Aaron and his Sonnes and the Levites were in the Temple the same the Bishops and Presbyters and Deacons challenge to themselves in the Church Where these three degrees and so the superiority of Bishops over Presbyters are by him affirmed to be traditions of the Apostles On occasion therefore of inquiring into Hierome's meaning and because this place so readily offered it selfe to
to the Apostles not as to a Common councell of sociall Rulers but as so many severall planters and Governours of the Church each having all power committed to him and depending on no conjunction of any one or more Apostles for the exercise of it And this is largely and clearly deduced Dissert 3. c. 1. 2. 3. 4. And this power being by them derived to Bishops in each City in the same manner as they used it themselves which is also farther evidenced and vindicated c. 5. c. this was deemed a first competent proofe of this matter and as a confirmation of it it was observable that the first Bishops made by them were in the very Scripture called Apostles James the Bishop of Jerusalem c. Diss 4. c. 3. 8. A second principall proofe of Scripture is taken from the severall mentions of the so many Churches of Asia and the so many Angels assigned to them one to each as a singular Governour or Bishop in the Revelation And in discourse of these wee have found great evidence of the fact to authorize us to improve the conclusion a little higher than was necessary to the defence of the maine cause viz. to affirme of these Angels that each of them was an Archbishop or Metropolitan and having done so to discerne upon undeniable grounds that there were many other such mentioned in the Scripture though not under that title as James the brother of the Lord Metropolitan of all Judea Titus of all Crete with an hundred Cities in it c. 9. And the wayes of according all other Scriptures with these have been briefly these 1. By observing this difference betwixt Cities and Metropoles as the true cause and occasion of the mentions of many Bishops in not of one City meaning thereby the Bishops of all the Cities under that Metropolis as Phil. 1. 1. Act. 20. 17. Secondly by examining the Nature of all the words which I conceived to be used in Scripture for Bishops as beside Apostle and Angel forementioned 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bishop 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ruler 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Doctor 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pastor 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 President 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elder and in the Fathers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chiefe Priest and Sacerdos Priestâ— each denoting Dignity and Authority and all cleared to be in their own nature applicable and by the circumstances of the Context to be actually applied to the singular Governours in each City most of them constantly so and that one of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if not constantly so yet very rarely otherwise And this is done Dissert 4. c. 7. and so to the end of that Diss Thirdly by observing the paucity of believers in many Cities in the first Plantations which made it unnecessary that there should by the Apostles be ordeined any more than a Bishop and Deacon one or more in each City and that this was accordingly done by them at the first is approved by the most undeniable antient Records Such as those 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the profoundest Histories out of which Epiphanius makes this Observation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Where there wanted Bishops and there were found persons worthy of the Office Bishops were constituted but where there was no multitude there none were found among them to be constituted Presbyters and they satisfied themselves with a Bishop alone in a place Onely the Bishop could not possibly be without a Deacon and accordingly the Apostle tooke care that the Bishop should have his Deacons to minister to him That which is thus cited by Epiphanius out of those Antient Records is found clearly affirmed by Clemens Romanus an Apostolicall person and witnesse of the Apostles practice that they being sent out by Christ as hee by his Father went out Preaching the Gospell and proclaiming it through Regions and Cities 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they constituted their first fruits into Bishops and Deacons of those which should afterward believe To both which wee shall againe adde what Ephiphanius prefaceth in that place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that when the preaching was new the Apostle St. Paul wrote agreeably to the present state of affaires We have here so cleare an account of the reason of the Apostles immediate subjoyning of Deacons to Bishops Phil. 1. 1. and 1 Tim. 3. viz. because those were the onely two Orders then constituted in every Church that these two places which are made use of by the adversaries against us are most punctuall evidences of the Truth of ours and of the unseasonablenesse of their pretentions 10. As for the Testimonies out of the first Antiquity The ground-worke I have chosen to lay in Ignatius his Epistles because the Testimonies thence are so many and so evident and the Writer so neere the Apostles time that holy men being Martyr'd in the 10. of Trajan to whose Reigne S. John lived and most of his Epistles written to the very Churches of Asia planted by St. John and the Bishops of many of them named by him and of one Bishop the Presbyters under him that if that one Authors Testimonies be attended to there is an absolute decision of the whole matter on the Prelatists side To which purpose I have also vindicated these Epistles from all that hath been objected to them in these late yeares and asserted their Authority by as antient and authentick evidences as can be vouched for any antient piece next the Holy Scriptures themselves and contented my selfe with the most pure and uncorrupted Copies and Editions of it 11. In accord with these Testimonies I have also produced many others out of Clemens Romanus Hegesippus Polycarpe Papias Polycrates Iustin Jrenaeus Clemens Alexandrinus Tâ—rtullian and as many of the first times as have said any thing to this matter and found a full consent in all and in most irrefragable suffrages which conclude this whole controversie on the Prelatists side To which I have also added some few observations of unquestionable truth as 1. That of the continuance of the use of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elder to signifie Bishop in our Modern sense among some of these most antient Church writers whereas the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is never used by any but for a singular Governour Secondly that of the distinct Congregations of Iewish and Gentile Christians in the same City the grounds of which are evident in Scripture and consequently of the severall Governours or Bishops over them which was usefull for the removing some seeming difficulties in the Catalogues of the first Bishops of Rome Antiâ—ch c. and some other the like not for the serving the Necessities of our Cause but as supernumerary and ex abundanti And upon these and such like heads of probation we have built our plea descending also to a particular survey of Saint Hierom's testimonies which are by the adversaries principally made use of against us And if what is thus copiously deduced in the Dissertations together
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
figuratively as it is evident it was not and was so confest when it appeared usefull to the Objectors that it should not yet it being the singularity of the person wherein our argument is founded our argument is not founded on that which is mystical For certainely this number is a plaine Grammatical notation of a singular person and that is proofe enough that it was not a collective body a Presbytery or Consistory that is meant by it And in this all the controversie betwixt us and the adversary consists whether it was in many or in one in each Church that the Ecclesiastical jurisdiction was vested and that is sufficiently decided by that which is cleare and unâ—igurative in this Text and cannot be imagined otherwise but by forcing some figure on it by which one Angel may be set for more Ministers which if it be done would not by their rule be argumentative 4. Thirdly Whereas it is suggested that this which we conclude from hence is opposite to many expresse testimonies of Scripture I have no more to say in this place where this is onely affirmed but not attempted to be proved but to professe my perswasion and assurance the truth of which must be in the processe of this discourse contested that there is no such thing but on the contrary that the whole Scripture and practice and writings of the first ages of the Church and the succeeding through all the world agree directly with what I conclude from the singularity of the Angel And when in the following words the testimonies are expressed to be those which make Bishops and Presbyters to be one and the same This also will immediately vanish when it is remembred what is largely deduced in the Dissertations that the word Bishop in the Scripture is never used for a Presbyter in our Moderne notion of the word but constantly for the one single Governor in a Church or City and that if there be any truth in that which is here affirmed Presbyters must be taken in a notion distant from that in which now we use it and signifie as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath already been said to doe the singular Bishop in each Church and 't is certaine such an identity of the names will never be deemed contrary to what we have concluded from the Angel but directly confirme it for us 5. And although here is no occasion in this place to prove and make good this assertion in each part of it the first positivè that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Bishop in Scripture alwayes signifies the singular Bishop the second suppositivè that if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bishop and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elder be one and the same in Scripture it must be by interpreting 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elder so as to signifie a Bishop in all place yet 't is certaine that this is already done at large in Dissert 4. cap. 6. Sect. 19 20 21 22. and shall here againe be repeated and vindicated when the proper place requires it which I foresee it will speedily doe 6. In the meane I must take leave to expresse my present sense and hope that others will not thinke it too hasty that no one of these five Considerations nor consequently all of them together have at all praejudged our Conclusion now in hand inferred from that of the Epistle of Christ to the 7. Angels of the 7. Churches Section VIII Of the singularity of each Angel The objections from the use of the plurall number THese considerations being thus laid as their foundation and I suppose being already removed from superseding or hindring our superstructure The next part of their method is having mentioned our objection from the singularity of each Angel's person to whom Christ's message or Epistle is sent and the conclusion of an high Prelatist from hence that these Angels are not onely Bishops but Archbishops to apply solid and every way sufficient answers to this Objection 2. In this proposall of our Objection I shall not need to inquire who this high Prelatist is The former intimations and directions have perswaded me that I am lookt on as this Objector though it be sufficiently knowne that the most Reverend Archbishop of Armagh Lord Primate of Ireland hath many yeares since deduced this conclusion in every part from this Text and might if they had pleased have secured me from the opinion either of novelty or singularity in the Assertion 3. But I shall most willingly assume the burthen and proceed to the view of the solid and every way sufficient answers which are said to be given to this Objection which though they be it seemes to be fetcht out of Smectymnuus c. yet it happens well that we shall without need of consulting those larger volumes find them here with more ease reduced to two heads One that the word Angel signifies not a singular person the second that if it did it will not at all advantage the Episcopal cause 4. These two I confesse if either of them be solidly proved will utterly drive us from our hold The onely question at present is whether in either part the proofes be solid and of this we must now inquire and first of the former of them 5. This they thus propose That the word Angel is not to be taken 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not individually but collectively for all the Pastors and Ministers of the respective Churches 6. But before their proofes for such an assertion that the Angel of such a Church which is certainly an individual as much as the Bishop of such a Diocese is not yet to be taken individually they first adde their confession that this answer is called a poore shift a vaine conceipt c. but promise such reasons for the justification of it which cannot be answered 7. To the view of these unanswerable Reasons therefore we shall now hasten And the first reason is because our Saviour speakes to the Angel often in the plural number Rev. 2. 21. But unto you I say and the rest of Thyatira and so Rev. 2. 10. and 13. By which say they it is evident that by the word Angel is not meant one singular person but the collective body of Rulers 8. To this first reason I shall answer by separating that one text of Thyatira from the other two and all that are of the same nature with them and speake first of these two and remind them 1. that in an Epistlâ— unquestionably addrest to a particular person others under his care and charge may be and are occasionally mentioned so in that to Titus Paulâ—s owne Sonne i. e. under the particular character of the beloved person converted by him in the conclusion we finde these words Grace be with you all i. e. not with him as he must signifie a whole Presbyterie but all the sincere lovers of Christ and Saint Paul they that love us in the faith in the former part of the verse 9.
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
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
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
transcribing it Thirdly that if any one or more places shall be thought by any man to belong to Presbyters in our moderne sense as that of Jam 5. 14. or the like I shall onely desire that he will bring any convincing proofe or authentick Testimony that in that or those places it so signifies and I shall most willingly grant it to him and be so farre from thinking it in the least degree disadvantagious to our pretensions that I shall not doubt to evidence it a demonstrative argument to confirm them but shall not need to insist on that till such proofe be offered Fourthly that by this it is already most evident that my assertion was not truely cited p. 92. in these words that wheresoever the word Presbyter is used in the New Testament it is to be understood not of a meere Presbyter but of a Bishop properly so called Certainly neither my words nor sense extended to the wheresoever and it is to be being onely in a disjunctive forme either constantly so or sometimes but rarely otherwise Fifthly that if I were not misreported and the Paradox were as high and as positive as it is represented yet I conceive not the reason why they that have with great confidence affirmed that both Bishops and Elders do alway signifie in Scripture their Presbyters and no more for if either of those words do but once signifie a Bishop their Jus Divinum and whole cause falls to the ground irrecoverably should be so much at leisure from excusing themselves to accuse that for a Paradox in others which is not imaginable to be more an extreme on one side then theirs is on the other Lastly that if they doe not thinke it necessary to take a particular survey of all that is said in justification of these which they thus please to style Paradoxes which is in effect as if they should professe to deny and declaime against the conclusion without attempting to satisfie any reason by which it is inferr'd It might be as just in me to tender them answers of the same making and so to supersede any farther dispute in this matter But I shall not imitate their method but rather prepare to attend them in it and having thus farre served them by undertaking the taske which was due to them in giving the Reader a briefe view of the grounds of my Assertions which were too long for them to take notice of I shall now trace their steps and follow them which way soever they lead Section IV. Of Reverence to Antiquity and the Interpretations of the Antients Of Praelatists disagreement among themselves FIrst then say they we desire it may be considered that these assertions are contrary to antiquity which yet notwithstanding our Brethren doe so highly magnifie and boast of it in this controversy and for receding from which as they say we do they doe most deeply charge us That these Assertions as farre as they are owned by me and are Assertions are so distant from being contrary to antiquity that they are founded in the Records of the most antient reverend authority hath appeared most plainly by what hath now been said and had before been laid as the ground of the interpretations in the fourth Dissert if they which gathered the conclusion from thence would have vouchsafed to take notice of the praemisses The utmost that can be with truth pretended is that some of the Texts which we have insisted on here and so likewise some of those where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elders are mentioned are not by all the antients interpreted just in that manner as I thinke they may safely and most probably be interpreted and so as they will best accord with the opinions which those very antients appeared to have concerning the Originall of Episcopacy In this I hope I have not offended against the antient Church or if I had as I should have expected other accusers than those I have so should I waite for no other judge but my selfe and immediately submit to any penance for it But they which truely reverence antiquity discerne also wherein this Reverence is terminated not in adhering to every interpretation of each Text of Scripture given by any antient Commentator or Interpreter for truely that is absolutely impossible severall of them being known in interpreting of Texts very frequently to differ one from the other This can be no newes to any man who hath but lightly viewed them or but occasionally consulted Tirinus or such like later Commentators who have collected the Interpretations of the Antients and marshalled their names and told us how many have been for one how many for another sense of such a Text. And in affaires of this nature wherein they have neither taught Doctrines nor testified Traditions but onely exprest their single opinions or conjectures of an Apostles meaning in words capable of more senses than one I know no Praelatist that ever denyed later Writers liberty to recede from one and adhere to some other of the antients or if more convincing reasons appeared for any fresh interpretation never given before the like liberty hath been allowed And indeed if it were not so our studying of the Originalls inquiry into the nature of words and phrases observation of customes among the antients and all wherein learned men differ from unlearned consideration of the context and argument 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as well as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of each difficult place and all the other skills and advantages of a good Interpreter would all be unusefull first and then dangerous would tempt one oit to recede from some former Writers to forsake the roade and method so ordinary of transcribing other mens labours and by inciting him to say any thing which had not oft been said before which if it have why doth he againe trouble himself and others to repeat it would infallibly involve him under the burthen and guilt that is here laid on me of being contrary to Antiquity But I am unwilling to discourage them from any sort or degree of reverence to antiquity and on condition they will be fairely tried by it in any notion by which they can imagine to define that Reverence or the word Antiquity I will forgoe all my novell interpretations and say no one word which the Antients have not distinctly said before me and refer the whole fate of the cause to this judicature Their second consideration is that they are contrary to all that have ever written in defence of Episcopacy from whence they conclude that till their brethren i. e. we Praelatists agree among themselves they need not spend time to answer the private Opinions of one Doctor To this I answer that it hath alwayes been deemed lawfull to any man which hath undertaken the defence of a Christian cause asserted constantly by the Church to choose his arguments as combatants do their weapons such as he thinkes are fittest for his managery and will most probably in his opinion convince
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
Scripture except Saint Iohn's But then 2. that doth not infer them to be new expressions in Saint Iohn's dayes as these dayes are distinguisht from the dayes of the other Apostles whom Iohn survived but only that they were idiomes or characters of speech that Saint Iohn delighted to make use of 13. Thus indeed 't is ordinarily observed of his expressing of Christ by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the word which yet is taken from the Ancients of the Jewish Church the Chaldes paraphrase being knowne frequently to use 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the word of the Lord and Plato seems to have been acquainted with the expression which caused Amelius to sweare at the reading the beginning of S. John's Gospell that that Barbarian was of their Plato's mind that the word of God was in order of a Principle and perhaps not peculiarly to him appropriate for Budaeus a very learned Critick in Greek affirmes Saint Luke to have used it in this notion cap. 1. 2. and if he doth not yet still 't will be but a peculiar part of John's style which if he had written his Gospell in the same yeare that Saint Matthew did his he would doubtlesse have made use of the phrase being certainly in the world before that time and so not new as they would have it and the usage of it in the Church being in all reason to be derived from John's use of it who was from thence called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Divine not John's use of it from the new admission of it into the Christian Church 14. And for the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lord's day as it is not certaine that it is the Christian Sabbath I meane the weekly Lord's day which is meant by that title once used in the Revelation but as probably the feast of Easter the annual commemoration of Christ's rising from the dead and accordingly Andreas Caesariensis sets it indifferently yet so as it seems rather to incline to the later 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Lord's day bearing the memorial of the resurrection of Christ so in what notion soever it be taken it was against Saint Iohn's use of the word that gave it authority in the following dialect of the Church not the Churches usage that we any where can discerne from whence Saint Iohn derived it And so this will be an instance as ineffectual as the former to inferre the conclusion to which it is designed For indeed bating the unskilfulnesse of the argument ab authoritate negative already mentioned what a strange way of concluding would this be S. Iohn useth the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the word and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lord's day supposing also that 't is true which is added and no other writer of the Scripture useth them but in stead of them the Sonne of God Messias Christ and the first day of the week therefore if there had been any office of Bishops erected in the Church in Saint Iohn's time it is strange that Saint Iohn should not mention the name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bishop 'T is at the first hearing cleare enough that there is no strangenesse in this both because Saint Iohn undertooke not to set downe a Dictionary of all words or customes which were in his time in the Church and because there is no proportion held betwixt the members of the comparison as hath been shewed And it will yet be lesse strange because 1. it is easily supposeable and not strange that he should have no occasion at all to mention that office or that mentioning it he should doe it in his owne chosen expression 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Angel or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elder as in other greater matters he is acknowledged and allowed to doe by either of those signifying the same thing as expressely as the using of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bishop would have done And 2. it is otherwise as manifest by Saint Paul and Saint Luke that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bishop and the office belonging to it were before the time of Saint John's writings used in the Church as it could be if Saint Iohn had made expresse mention of it 15. And lastly for the highest round in the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the special part of the consideration our affirmation that Polycarp was made Bishop by Saint Iohn that doth not any more than all the rest inferre it necessary that Saint Iohn should mention the name Bishop Saint Iude I hope is supposed by the Assemblers to have constituted some Presbyters in the Church and yet he in his Epistle hath made no mention of any such name or office And so much for that first consideration Section IV. Of Saint John's writings Againe of Diotrephes A Second consideration now followes to be added to this That there is not any the least intimation in all S. John's writings of the superiority of one Presbyter over another save onely where he names and chides Diotrephes as one ambitiously affecting such a Primacy 2. A consideration of the same unhappy constitution with the former 1. a testimonio negativè againe Saint Iohn had no occasion to mention it therefore there was in his time no such thing and 2. in respect of the matter just the same againe put only in other words there 't was No mention of Bishop in all Saint John's writings here No superiority of one Presbyter over another in all Saint John's writings And so it can adde no accumulation of weight to the former 3. But then 2. bating againe those two infirmities in discourse what if it were granted that at the time of Saint John's writing there were not in the whole Church of Christ any one Presbyter superior to another Presbyter what hath the Author of the Dissert lost or they gained by this He makes no doubt willingly to yeild to any inforcing reason that is or shall be produced to conclude that at that time there was above Deâ—cons but one degree in the Church and yet to be never the lesse qualified to maintaine his praetensions Nay he is knowne to have expressed it as his opinion probably inferred and not easily confuted and that by which if it be true or because there is no evidence to the contrary all the Presbyterian praetensions founded in the doubtfulnesse of words in Scripture are utterly excluded that there were not in the space within compasse of which all the Bookes of the New Testament were written any Presbyters in our Moderne notion of them created in the Church though soon after certainely in Ignatius's time there were and then if the consideration now before us were of any force at all this would be the one direct and proper use of it to adde more confidence to this opinion and so to confirme not to invalidate our praetensions 4. Thirdly for Diotrephes and Saint Iohn's chiding of him for ambitiously affecting a Primacy over other Presbyters there will appeare to be more than one misadventure in it For
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for or in the name and authority of Christ and againe wee pray you 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which we well render in Christs stead as his proxies for to Embassadors are which being there applied to S. Paul an Apostle and to Timothy one imployed by him immediatly to preach and plant the faith and after to governe in the Church may be proportion belong to the Bishops their successors peculiarly 4. Thirdly that as the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies a Messenger or Nuntio so the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Apostle according to the origination of it from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be sent signifies also without any considerable difference but yet is never thought fit either in Scripture or in the style of the Church to be applied to ordinary Ministers but onely to those sent immediately by Christ as he by his Father to plant and rule Churches and to those who first succeeded them or were imployed by them in that great office 5. But that which wholly frustrates the designe of the consideration is this that the singularity of the person one Angel in each of the seven Churches is all that wee argue from in this matter For as to the power and authority in each Church That is certainly pretended to and not declin'd by the Presbyterian as well as the Prelatist the onely Question is whether it be placed in one over the rest or in more than one ruling together in common and from the style of Christs Epistle to the Angel of the Church of Ephesus and the like in each of the seven wee thinke we conclude regularly that it was one it being certaine that the singular number is not the duall or plurall and that Angel is a person not an aggregate body or multitude 7. And to the same purpose againe wee conclude not from the mention of the Starres not from their light or shining but from their number but seven in all no more than there are Churches i. e. one onely in each Church And we know there is difference betweene a Star and an Asterisme or constellation one single light and a conjunction of many And accordingly Mr. Brightman that is resolved not to finde this truth in that Text is forced to deale plainely and to tell us that the Epistles are not each of them sent to any one Angel but to the Colledge of Pastors nec uni alicui Angelo mittuntur sed toti ut ita dicam collegio Pastorum in Apoc. c. 2. 1. which being sufficiently contrary to the evidence of the Text which reads 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the Angel in the singular he thinkes fit to adde his reason for it Non enim unus erat Angelus Ephesi sed plures nec inter istos aliquis Princeps for there was not 〈◊〉 Angel of Ephesus but many nor any one among those principall or chiefe which is the begging of the Question or proveing his assertion onely by asserting it whereas Beza finding himselfe more prest by the force of the place is forced to render it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the Angel i. e. to the president quem nimirum oportuit inprimis de his rebus admoneri who was in the first place to be admonished of these things 8. What the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the use of the Antient Church properly signifies is showne at large out of Justin Martyr Dionysius Bishop of Corinth Marcellus Ancyranus and the Councell of Ephesus Dissert 4. c. 17. directly the same that we meane now by Bishop But that I pretend not to thinke Beza meant by it his Prolepses and espoused Principles leading him another way All that I observe from the citation is that by the singularity of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Angel not Angels he was forced to confesse a single person to be understood which is contrary to Mr. Brightman and those that comprehend a Colledge of Presbyters under the title which being yeilded I doubt not but our other evidences already produced which must not be at every turne repeated from the Catalogue of Bishops in the Church of Ephesus c. and the judgement of the Vniversal Church concerning those single persons will conclude them indeed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not in Beza's notion but in Justin Martyrs who was much a more competent judge i. e. the very Bishops which we pretend them to be And truly I cannot discerne any weake part which may hazard being counted ridiculous in this way of arguing Section VII Of their exception to our arguing from Symbols Of Rishop and Elder being the same THe last Consideration now remains in these words These titles of Stars and Angels are mysterious and metaphoricall It is said Rev. 1. 20. The Mysterie of the seven Stars And certainly it cannot be safe or solid to build the structure of Episcopacie by Divine Right upon mysterious and metaphoricall denominations Theologia Symbolica non est argumentativa Especially if we consider that there are abundance of cleere texts that make Bishops and Presbyters to be one and the same and it cannot be praise-worthy for any men though never so learned in the esteem of the world to oppose certain allegorical and mysterious titles to so many expresse testimonies of Scripture 2. To this the Answer will be satisfactory though it should be but briefe that we doe not found our argument in an allegorie For 1. though the word Stars applyed to the Governors of Churches be onely figuratively so applyed yet the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if the Authors of this consideration may be believed in that which immediately preceded signifies not an Angel from Heaven or incorporeal substance but a Messenger or Embassadour such as say they all Ministers are And agreeably in that which is here annexed to prove the allegorical or mystical phrases from Rev. 1. 20. the Mistery of the seven Starres it is evident that onely the word Starres is Symbolical or Mystical and as evident that the Angels are not for it is in the explicating and not in the forming of the figure that the Angels of the Churches are mentioned as the things which are signified by the mistery of the Starres as the Churches themselves by the Lamps and therefore as it would be absur'd to say that a symbol is explicated by a symbol one mystery by another or proportionably that the Churches by which the Lamps are exprest are a mystical allegorical phrase so it will be as unreasonable to affirme of the Angels that they are a mistery or allegorie because of the Starres it is affirmed that they are such when indeed the word Angel is the interpretation and unfolding of the mysterie which is as far from being the mistery as the light is from being darknesse which it expells out of the horizon and is purposely sent by God to doe so 3. But then secondly 't is yet more manifest that if the word Angel were here used