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
A VINDICATION OF THE DISSERTATIONS CONCERNING EPISCOPACIE From the ANSVVERS or EXCEPTIONS offered against them by the London Ministers in their Jus Divinum Ministerii Evangelici By H. HAMMOND D.D. LONDON Printed by J. G. for Richard Royston at the Angel in Ivy-lane 1654. TO THE READER IN Erasmus's distribution of his owne writings into Tomes the 8th we finde thus inscribed by him Octavum occupent Apologiae Me miserum Et hae justum volumen efficient It was his great infelicity that the Apologies and Answers to exceptions and calumnies which he was constreined to write made up an intire large Volume in folio Now though I have that pleasure in the temper of that person which gives me security by the Romanists Proverbe never to be deemed one of their good Catholicks and so may probably partake of some part of his fate yet 't were great insolence in me who have not troubled the World with a tenth proportion to that were with he hath favoured it to expect the Tithe of that consideration which is required to make one capable of that degree of infelicity which lay a full load on him Neverthelesse these few last moneths have given me a tast and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what I am to expect For besides the reproaches of one learned Gentleman to which being barely such I have no one word to retribute but that of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which Christ directs me to I have farther met with some variety Many exceptions though litle of contumely from these Assemblies More and in a very distant Character from a large Preface of Animadversions on the Dâ—ssertations sent me lately from Oxford others also there are which I have not yet had leasure to weigh but soon purpose and hope to do it and if either I discerne my selfe or finde it the opinion of others that what is already said in the Tracts which they oppose be not sufficient to prevent or remove the scruples proposed by them I shall willingly dedicate some time of vacancy to that imployment At the present the Exceptions of the London Ministers have challenged the precedence and here are offered to consideration And because the Praeface from Oxford falls on the same sort of matter Episcopacy and Ignatius's Epistles as they are defended in the Dissertations I purpose God-willing that an Answer to that shall now follow assoone as the Printer can dispatch it And that is all that I had to say to the Reader by way of Praeface THE TABLE CHAP. I. COncerning the Angels of the Churches of Asia Page 9. Section 1. The grounds of affirming them to be Bishops Ibid. Sect. 2. Of Timothy of Onesimus of Policarpe p. 15. Sect. 3. Of the negative argument from S. John's not using the word Bishop Of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Revelation p. 19 Sect. 4. Of S. Johns writings Againe of Diotrephes p. 25 Sect. 5. Of S. John's being Bishop of Asia Of the Apostles being Bishops p. 29 Sect. 6. Of the word Angel and Star pretended to be common to all Ministers Of Messenger and Embassadour The singularity of the word Angel p. 35 Sect. 7. Of their exception to our arguing from Symbols Of Bishop and Elder being the same p. 38 Sect. 8. Of the singularity of each Angel The objections from the use of the plurall number p. 41 Sect. 9. Of the Elders at Ephesus Act. 20. p. 45 Sect. 10. Of expressing a number by singulars A Church by a Candlestick Of the seven Angels Rev. 8. p. 47 Sect. 11. Of the Epistles being sent to the whole Church not to the Bishop only Of Timothy Onesimus and Polycarp being Bishops of some of the Asian Churches without any charge of Apostacy falling on them by this meanes p. 50 Sect. 12. Of Timothies being an Evangelist that it hinders not his being a Bishop p. 55 Sect. 13. Of the Bishops at Ephesus Of the plural number in the Epistle to the Angel of Smyrna p. 56 Sect. 14. Of Beza's interpretation of the Praesident p. 57. Sect. 15. Of Dr. Reynolds interpretation of the Bishop in Cyprian Of Ordination by Bishops not without Presbyters from the Testimones of Cyprian and Fermilian p. 51 Sect. 16. Of the Churches of Asia being Metropoliticall Of the paucity of believers p. 54 Sect. 16. Of modelling Churches according to the Government of the Roman state Of exemplars of Metropolitans among the Jewes Testimonies of the Apostles instituting Metropolitans p. 67 Sect. 17. Of the objection against Metropoles from the seven Starres in seven Churches p. 71 Sect. 18. Of the use of the word Bishop for Archbishop in Tertullian Of Angel in Christs Epistle p. 64 Sect. 19. 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 p. 75 CHAP. II. OF the equivalence of the words Bishop and Elder in the New Testament p. 92 Sect. 1. Foure sorts of equivalence of these words proposed Ibid. Sect. 2 Of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 95 Sect. 3. Of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elder p. 100 Sect. 4. Of reverence to Antiquity and the interpretations of the Antients Of Praelatists disagreement among themselves 102. Sect. 5. 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 p. 105 Sect 6. A first confession objected and vindicated Of the Ephesine Presbyters being all the Praelates of Asia Elders Aldermanni p. 108 Sect. 7. A second confession of the Bishops Phil. 1. 1. being Bishops of that whole Province Philippi a Metropolis and a Colony p. 110 Sect. 8. A third confession of Timothies being an Archbishop Of the qualifications 1 Tim. 3. 2 belonging to Bishops Of the Bishops being worthy of double-honour though he never preach Of the word and Doctrine Of the Presbytery 1 Tim. 4 Of Rebuking and receiving accusation against an Elder p. 112 Sect. 9. A fourth confession of Titus being Archbishop of Creet p. 116 Sect. 10. A fift charge of contrariety to Scripture answered Of visitation of the sick belonging to Elders James 5. p. 118 Sect. 11. A last objection from Act. 21. 18. and. 14. 3. and 11. 30. answered Elders for Rulers or Bishops p. 122 CHAP. III. COncerning the Opinion of Antiquity in this Question Page 129. Sect. 1. The Testimonies of Clemens Romanus Bishops and Deacons the onely offices at the first Corinth Metropolis of Achaia What 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies The Apostles care to prevent contentions about Episcopacy Hegesippus's testimony of the contentions at Corinth Clement a Bishop p. 129. Sect. 2. The Testimony of Policarpe That he was himselfe a Bishop His mention of Ignatius's Epistles fit to give authority to them being so confirmed as it is by a series of the Antients p. 139 Sect. 3. A vindication of Ignatius's Epistles Vossius's edition of them and the Archbishops of
that one of that name Onesimus was Bishop of Ephesus in the tenth yeare of Trajan wherein Ignatius wrote that Epistle 7. Secondly that by one indication there is some small reason to guess that this Onesimus was then lately come to that dignity I meane Ignatius his words of gratulation to that Church that God had given them the favour to obtaine or have such a Bishop 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 8. Thirdly that according to Epiphanius his setting down the time of John's banishment and visions in the dayes of Claudius there must be above 50 yeares distance between the date of this Epistle of Christ and that of Ignatius and consequently that it is not so likely that Onesimus that was their Bishop in the later should be that very Angel in the former 9. Fourthly that as I can have no cause to consent with Ado in lib. de Fest Apost ad 14. Cal. Mart. that this Onesimus in Ignatius was hee that is mentioned by St. Paul to Philemon so nor to adhere to the Roman Martyrologie that he whom Paul mentions was constituted Bishop of Ephesus after Timothy 10. And therefore fiftly it must be remembred that both the Greeke Menologies and Simeon Metaphrastes who celebrate his memory on March 13. acknowledge not that Onesimus to have been at all Bishop of Ephesus and that others also of the antients make him to have been Bishop of Beraea and martyr'd in Domitian's Reigne and Dorotheas in Synopsi expresly affirmeth that Gaius succeeded Timothy in Ephesus 11. From all which it followes that Onesimus mentioned by Ignatius was some later Bishop of that City who bare that very Ordinary Greeke name and so that his being Bishop of Ephesus no way belongs to that time of the Angel in the Revelation not interferes with their opinion who thinke Timothy to have beene that Angel The appearing incompetibility whereof was it I spppose that brought in here the mention of Onesimus 12. This was here seasonable enough to be confronted to their words in this place and will be of use to be remembred in the processe of their Discourse 13. Thirdly for Polycarp's being Bishop of Smyrna as there is left no place for the doubting of that if either Irenaeus that lived in his time and saw him or if Tertullian who lived not long after and was a curious Antiquary may be believed in their joynt affirmations of a knowne matter of Fact so it is againe no where affirmed by me that hee was the very man to whom that Epistle to the Angel of Smyrna was sent and if that were their meaning they have againe misreported my words 14. All that I had said I thinke was proved irrefragably that in two of those Churches mentioned in the Apocalyps Timothy and Poylcarpe are by Anthentick testimonies affirmed to be constituted Bishops the one by St. Paul the other by St. John and that is a competent argument added to others to inferre that the Angel of each of those Churches was a single person and so a Bishop in the Prelatists not in the Presbyterians notion of the word an assertion which I need not feare will yeild any advantage to the adversaries and so I as briefly commit it to them Section 3. Of the negative Argument from St. John's not using the word Bishop Of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Revelation IN the next place by way of answer to this plea of the Prelatists we are referred to three writings of their party Smectymnuus the Vindication of Smectymnuus the Humble Addresses of the Divines at the Isle of Wight wherein say they these things are fully clearely and satisfactorily handled 2. But it being certaine that every one of these three was publisht some yeares before the Dissertations I should thinke it strange that the particulars there insisted on by me should by divination be thus answered before their conception being able truly to professe that though I am not unwilling to make use of any mans aid for defending truth yet none of those writings to which any of those three were given in answer were by me made use of in those compositions 3. But we are superseded the trouble of examining any of these three by the leave that is craved to borrow from them what may be usefull for the turne and then in like manner I shall more willingly receive from these what shall appeare to answer or prejudge our plea than undertake new troubles in farther unnecessary search of it 4. First then they desire it may be considered that S. John the Penman of the Revelation doth neither in it nor in any of his other writings so much as upon the by I suppose for the Printer failes me name Bishop Hee names the name Presbyter frequently in the Revelation yea when he would set out the office of those who are neerest the throne of Christ in his Church Rev. 4. he calls himselfe a Presbyter Ep. 2. And whereas in S. John's dayes some new expressions were used in the Christian Church which were not in Scripture as the Christian Sabbath began to be called the Lords day and Christ himselfe the Word now both these are found in the writings of St John And it is strange to us that the Apostle should mention a new phrase and not mention a new Office erected by this time as our Brethren say in the Church especially if wee consider that Polycarpe as it related was made Bishop by him And no doubt if hee had been made Bishop in a prelaticall sense we should have found the name Bishop in some of his writings who lived so long as to see Episcopacy setled in the Church as our Adversaries would make us believe 5. We are now to consider what degree of conviction or Argument to the prejudice of our pretensions can be fetcht from this large consideration And first it is most evident and notorious among all Artists that an argument from Authority cannot conclude negatively that there were no Bishops in St John's time because St. John doth not mention Bishops It is the same way of arguing as if they should conclude that there was no God in the time of writing the Canonicall Chapters of Hester because God is not found once mentioned in those Chapters And yet of this inartificiall kinde is the whole discourse of this Paragraph the premisses barely negative throughout all the consideration And so nothing is conclusible from it to the prejudice of us or benefit of our adversaries 6. Secondly all that this consideration pretends to is terminated in the bare name of Bishop that is it which they pretend is not to be found in St. John But 1. They knew that the word Angel is oft in St John and by us contested by the singularity of the person one Angel in each Church and other Characters to conclude the Office of Bishop as irrefragably as if the word Bishop were there specified Nay of this wee have a competent experience that if the word Bishop had been found there
it would by Presbyterians be as readily expounded to signifie a Presbyter or colledge of such for so certainly they have done in other places and truly with as much reason and satisfaction to any impartiall judge as they have affirmed the word Angel in each Church to denote such And therefore 7. Thirdly I shall demand would the Apostle St. John's using the name Bishop be at all usefull to the Prelatists interests to conclude that there was such an Office in the Church in his time or would it not If not then sure it is not to our prejudice that hee hath not mentioned that name and then this whole consideration is perfectly to no purpose If it would then sure St. Pauls and St. Lukes frequent mentions of them I may adde St. Peter also will supply St. John's omissions and conclude there were Bishops in their time and that was long before St. Johns death if it had been considered 8. Fourthly when it is said that St. John frequently names the name Presbyter in the Apocalyps 't is not imaginable that they should thinke the Author of the Dissertations could receive any prejudice from thence when hee hath avowed to believe that those 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elders mentioned in those so many places of the Revelation were the 24. Bishops of Judaea sitting in Councell at Jerusalem their Metropolis encompassing James the Bishop there together with the foure living creatures denoting the foure Apostles that were joyned with them in the councell and the 7. Lamps the emblemes of the 7. Deacons attending Of which matter till they have disproved what is commodiously deduced Dissert 4. c. 20. Sect. 10. I shall have no need farther to inlarge it being perfectly uselesse to our present inquiry that either the word Bishop or Elder should be used by S. John for a single Prefect in the Christian Church supposing as now we do in the Objection and t is but a begging of the question in the respondent to suppose the contrary that the word Angel is a notation of it 9. By this it appeares fiftly how little wee incommodated by the position of these Elders in the Revelation placed neerest to the throne of Christ in his Church for supposing as I doe that Christ is by way of vision represented there under the person of the Bishop of Jerusalem sitting in councell and encompassed on each side with a Semicircle of Thrones on which sat the 24 Bishops of Judea I can well allow these 24. call them Elders or what you please to be neerest to that middle throne whereon Christ is seated And truely if it should be otherwise interpreted of Presbyters in the moderne notion of the word it would be hard to make the other parts of the vision to beare proportion with that phansy For I must suppose according to St. John's words that in the vision these thrones were set up in Heaven And then I shall demand was that a representation of any councell or Judicature on Earth or not If it were not then nothing can be inferred thence in favour of Presbyters more than of Bishops for of both these we speake as of Officers on Earth But if it were then applying it to Presbyters it must follow that in the midst of them there is some other invironed on each side by them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sitting upon that throne of principall dignity before whom also they on the other thrones must fall downe v. 10 or else the parallel will not hold throughout and the least that can be signified hereby will be superiority of dignity in him that sits on that middle throne above all the 24. Elders which will be deemed to exceede the case of a Prolocutor or Moderator of an Assembly which is the ut most that the Presbyterian 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or equality can admit of but much more commodiously agrees to the Metropolitan of all Iudea sitting in a Nationall Councell with the Bishops about him for of these we doubt not to affirme that they were as much inferior to him as this representation doth pretend them to be 10. As for the sence affixt to it by the Assemblers that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are Presbyters in the moderne notion and that he that sits in the midst of them is Christ this is against all analogy and rules of interpreting a mining and confounding the Originall with the Copy the type with the Antitype interpreting one part of the visiâ—n as if it were in Heaven for it was there where Christ did sit as Judge and the other as if it were on Earth for sure the Presbyters in this notion are to be considered as there And this is a very sufficient prejudice against their interpretation if there were not enough besides and such as no way presseth our way of setting it as hath been already manifested 11. Sixtly for his calling himselfe a Presbyter Ep. 2. I answer that as farre as this allegation hath truth it hath no force in it at all against our pretentions He doth indeed call himselfe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Elder we fitly render it noting thereby according to analogy with the solemne notion of the word both among sacred and prophane Writers set downe at large Dissert 4. c. 19. a person of authority in the Church of Christ an Apostle first and then the supreme Governour of the whole Iewish Church in Asia which is but proportionable to Saint Pauls beginning his Epistles with Paul an Apostle or Commissioner of Iesus Christ placed in that power in the Church by Christ himselfe and with the same style in the front of Saint Peters Epistles onely with this Characteristick note peculiar to Saint Iohn in his Gospell and Epistles of omitting the expression of his owne name And then all that this text is of force to doe is to prove that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth not import a Presbyter in our moderne use of the word governing in common with other Presbyters but rather a singular Governor of the Church such as Bishops are by us contested to be And so the Greek Scholiasts have expressed it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 By the word Elder he calls himselfe Bishop And this 't is certaine is for the interest of the Author of the Dissertations and no way to his prejudice if it had been adverted by them that produce it 12. Seventhly when 't is said that in Saint Iohn's dayes some New expressions were used in the Christian Church which were not in Scripture as the Lords day and the Word I professe not to comprehend what advantage to their praetensions could be designed or aimed at in this part of the consideration For 1. how can it truly be said that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lord's day which is in the Revelation and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Word which is in Saint Iohn's Gospell were not in Scripture I must suppose the meaning is that they were not in any other writings of
20. 31. in this Lydian or Proconsular Asia ver 18. In this time he had pursued his worke very diligently and zealously not ceasing to warne every one night and day with teares and herein his harvest was proportionable to his labour After two years space and upwards spent at Ephesus it is said ver 19. that by the continuance of his preaching and gathering Disciples all they that dwelt in Asia heard the word of the Lord both Jews and Greeks and though many were hardned and believed not and spake evil of that way ver 9. yet ver 17. by some extraordinary workes of his which were made knowne to all the Jews and Greeks dwelling at Ephesus feare fell on them all and the name of the Lord Jesus was magnified a conversion in a manner general and therefore it followes and many that believed ver 18. and so mightily grew the word of God and prevailed ver 20. Whereupon Saint Paul himselfe speaking of these successes calls it a great dore and an effectual 1 Cor. 16. 9. which at Ephesus v. 8. was opened unto him 12. From hence we conclude and sure safely may 1. that in Asia generally and especially in Ephesus there was a great number of Christians before this time of Christs Epistle which is not a concluding it barely from the greatnesse of that or any other Cities of Asia Secondly from hence together with Ephesus's being in the secular account the Notitiae Imperiales a Metropolis where the Assizes were kept we conclude that Ephesus was in the Christian account also a Metropolis and the chiefe of all Asia and this I hope is not so improbable infirme a way of concluding as the other imposed on us seemed to be 13. Thirdly from hence and from other exemplifications of it as that Trallis and Magnesia which appeare to be under the Metropolis of Ephesus are by Ignatius written to as all Episcopal Sees in our present notion of the word Bishop we conclude that other Cities of Asia beside these seven had received the Christian faith and were certainely taken care for by Paul which had planted it among them and agreeably had Rulers setled in them i. e. Bishops subordinate to the Metropolitans And all these inferences I doubt not will appeare regular enough and I should farther enlarge on them if there were any thing in the answer which could render it needful or seasonable 14. As for the paucity of Christians in those times in comparison of the rest of the people that cannot be pertinently opposed to our pretensions because still the number of Christians in a great City might beare the same proportion to the number of the Christians in the smaller Cities that the people in the one did to the people in the other one thousand bearing the same proportion to one hundred that an hundred thousand doth to ten thousand 15. And it being the affirmation of Clemens that the Apostles in each City where they received any proselytes though never so few before their parting constituted a Bishop with his Deacon who was to be governor 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of those that should after believe it followes unquestionably from thence that in the Cities which had but few Christians Bishops might be and were constituted and those very regularly depending on the greater their Metropolitical Cities from whence the faith was derived to them as from Ephesus where Paul chiefly resided to the Cities about it and all this without any need of ballancing the parties or considering what comparison the number of the Christians in one or the other bore to the number of the unbelievers in either City And let this serve by way of Reply to the first branch of the second answer Section XVI Of modelling Churches according to the Government of the Roman state Of exemplars of Metropolitans among the Jewes Testimonies of the Apostles instituting Metropolitans THeir second answer is we doe not believe that ever it can be proved that the Apostles did modell the Government of the Church according to the Government of the Roman state This was the after policy of Christian Emperours and Bishops but no part of Apostolicall policy And therefore it doth not follow that because there were divers Cities under the jurisdiction of those 7. Cities that therefore there should be divers Churches subordinate to the 7. Asian Churches 2. That the Apostles which designed to plant a Church in the Heathen World should doe it in that manner as would be most advantagious to their end will not I hope be accounted strange This generally was by betaking themselves to the Cities rather than the villages and first to the greater Cities unto which was the most frequent resort that by that meanes the faith might be most compendiously and successefully propagated If a greater City resisted their preaching or fewer Saints were gathered there I do not then pretend to prove or to believe that that was constituted a Metropolitan Church with superiority over others of greater antiquity or larger growth in the faith whatsoever the dignity of it were in the secular account But when a whole Nation is converted and the greatest and most populous Cities first and from thence the sound gone out into all the Region and lesser Cities in it that then the Apostles which certainly constituted Bishops in every believing City and therefore what is reported to have been done 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in every Church Acts 14. 23. is appointed to be done 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in every City Tit. 1. 5 should set up the principall Sees in those most Christian Cities which had formerly the priority in the Romane state as it is the wisest method and fittest for the wisest planters to take so we have all reason to believe it was done particularly in the Lydian or Proconsular Asia in which there being many more Christian Cities than those seven to whom Christ's Epistle is addrest those are in all reason to be accounted the chiefe of that Region and those which are not named lesse princiâ—all than they which concurring with what we finde recorded in Pliny and Ptolomy of the account of them in the imperiall noticiae if it demonstrate not is yet matter of exceeding great probability and may perswade with any reasonable man as long as there is nothing in any degree such which is offered to be confronted against it 3. If that which scandalizeth the Assemblers for we are left to Divine what it is be the unfitnesse that the Apostles should modell the Church according to the Roman state I shall first demand how it is possible to imagine a plantation of a Church in any whether Jewish or Heathen state without doing somewhat equivalent to this For suppose Joseph of Arimathea to have as Gildas saith converted the Britannick church in Tiberius's time is it to be imagined that he should meddle with the civill power of this Nation as it stood in respect of it's separation from other Nations toto divisa
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
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
is onely to state the Question betwixt us which is all the while no more but this whether Tertullian and Irenaeus that call Polycarpe and Onesymus Bishop of Smyrna and Ephesus meane Bishops 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in a peculiar sense or in a generall phrase as all Presbyters are called Bishops And this I acknowledge to be the onely question between us and if Bishops doe signifie Bishops I cannot doubt but the cause is by them adjudged on our side And why it should not they have to conclude onely this offer of argument that Bishops and Presbyters had all one name in the Apostles dayes and long after in Irenaeus's time 55. I am truly weary of the length of this Chapter and cannot but by consent have some compassion on the Reader and therefore I shall bring the matter to this short issue This reason of theirs is no reason unlesse the word Bishop both in the Apostles dayes and long after Irenaeus's time signified a Presbyter in our moderne notion For if both 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bishop and Elder signified Bishop in our notion this againe gives the cause to us from them And upon these termes I am content to leave it if ever they finde in Irenaeus that Episcopus signifies a Presbyter in our moderne notion I will confesse them Conquerours but this they have not offered here to doe and I have some moderate assurance they never will And so much for that Chapter CHAP. II. Of the equivalence of the words Bishop and Elder in the New Testament Section I. Foure sorts of equivalence of these words proposed THe next place where I find my selfe call'd forth is about the midst of their seventh Chapter toward the bottom of pag. 92. Onely for the conclusion of this Discourse c. For although in the former part of that Chapter they undertake to vindicate their chiefe proofes of Scripture Act. 20. 17 28. Phil. 1. 1. 1 Tim. 3. 1 Pet. 5. and to make replies to the Answers given to them and although it is most certaine that in the Dissertations every of those places are answered and shew'd to be fully reconcileable with our praetensions for Praelacy yet they have not pleased to take any notice of what is there said which if they had done I might without insolence undertake to shew that it had prevented all appearance of force in any of their Replies And therefore being by this meanes perfectly freed from all obligation to view any Paragraph of that former part of the Chapter and having already said somewhat to the chiefe of their places Act. 20. and fore-seeing a fit opportunity for the rest I shall for mine own and the Readers ease punctually expect and obey the summons appeare when I am call'd before them but no sooner avert their charge and not multiply debates above what is necessary Thus then they begin that there is a Doctor a high Praelatist c. That in a late Booke of his hath undertaken to make out these two great Paradoxes 1. That wheresoever the word Bishop is used in the New Testament it is to be taken in a praelaticall sense 2. That wheresoever the word Presbyter is used in the New Testament it is to be understood not of a mere Presbyter but of a Bishop properly so called And whereas we say that the Scripture-Bishop is nothing else but a Presbyter and that there was no Bishops distinct from Presbyters in the Apostles dayes this Author on the contrary saith that the Scripture-Presbyter is a true Bishop and that there were no single and meere Presbyters in the Apostles dayes For our parts we do not thinke it necessary to take a particular survey of all that is said in justification of these Paradoxes onely we desire it may be considered There is so much of the sense of some passages in the Dissertations set downe in these words that I am forced to believe that I am the Author here charged for these two Paradoxes That they are so styled by those who are contrary minded and who have assumed a power which if either of these propositions be true they must be obliged to part with I cannot thinke strange And if I should style their assertions as perfectly Paradox i.e. as contrary to all the antients sense or Doctrine in this matter when they say that the Scripture-Bishop is nothing else but a Presbyter c. this were certainly an introduction fit to be confronted to theirs as being equally argumentative But because this verball eloquence hath little of efficacy in it and will never be a meanes of evincing the truth of our pretensions by affirming the contrary to be errours or Paradoxes and because what is affixt to me is not intirely my sense though it recite it in some part and approach neere to it I shall here begin with a briefe relation of what is affirmed by the Dissertations in this matter and then inquire what is here produced to invalidate it Dissert 4. c. 6. the method leading to the consideration of the word Bishop and Elder in the Scripture the first thing taken notice of was the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or equivalence of these words in the opinion of many To which purpose Theodoret Chrysostome Oecumenius and St Hierome are cited as favourers of this opinion but this with some difference of the one from the other And for the distinct stating of the Question foure senses were set downe wherein it was possible that this equivalence of the words might be understood 1. That both Bishop and Elder should signifie one and the same viz. a Bishop in our moderne notion 2. That both should signifie the same thing viz. a Presbyter 3. That both of them should signifie promiscuously sometimes a Bishop sometimes a Presbyter i. e. that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should sometime signifie a Bishop sometime a Presbyter and in like manner 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifie sometime a Bishop sometime a Presbyter 4. That the word Bishop should alwayes signifie a singular Bishop and the word Elder sometimes a Bishop and sometimes a Presbyter Of these foure senses of the equivalence of these words it was sure no error to conclude that they were not all of them true each being exclusive of the other three and although some of the antients might be brought in favour to one more than to the other yet this was eminently observable that those that favoured that species which is most for the Presbyterians interest to be accepted doe yet assert the cause of the Prelatists as confidently as any So Theodoret who seemes most to assert the second species doth yet propugne the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the superiour dignity of Bishops above Presbyters and affirmes Those who were in his time called Bishops the Singular praefects of Cities to have been styled Apostles in the Scripture-times and that Epaphroditus was called so by St. Paul as being Bishop of the Philippians and so saith he
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-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
for this must be contained in these words of theirs that follow in the former place The occasion of that Epistle seemes to be a new sedition raised by the Corinthians against their Presbyters p. 57. 58. Clemens to remove their present sedition tells them how God hath alwayes appointed severall orders in his Church which must not be confounded in the Jewish Church he appointed High-Priest Priests and Levites And then tells them for the time of the Gospell that Christ Jesus sent his Apostles as before citing the words of Clement already set down But certainly this doth not prove Bishops in that Epistle to be no more than Presbyters but may as fitly be argumentative for me that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elders in that Epistle signifie Bishops The onely imaginable medium of proofe which can be usefull for their turne I shall suppose to be this that Corinth was but one City and therefore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elders at and of Corinth must needs be Presbâ—ters because according to our opinion there were not more Bishops in one City But to this I answer 1. That what Clemens saith in the testimony now produced he speakes not of Corinth peculiarly but of the Cities and Regions in generall which the Apostles converted and of them in the plurall number 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 through Regions and Cities and then in those many Cities there may well be many Bishops and yet certainly no more than one in one City Secondly that this Epistle of Clemens to the Corinthians was not to the Christians of that one City but to the whole Province of Achaia of which Corinth was the Metropolis and wherein the Proconsull of Achaia resided and kept his Courts Act. 18. 12. 15. So the Title of the Epistle inclines being inscribed to the Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which denotes the whole Province then called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as when in Polycarps Epistle the Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not onely that of the City Philippi but of the Province belonging to it and in the other part of the title of this Epistle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Church of God dwelling about Rome in the Church of Rome and all that belonged to that Metropolis called by Ignatius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the place of the Region of the Romans i. e. the City and the whole Region about it And so when Eusebius mentions Dionysius the famous Bishop of Corinth he calls him Bishop 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Province of or about Corinth And that this is the truth of it and no conjecture of mine may appeare by one character in the Epistle He tells them that they had formerly received Epistles from St. Paul This directs to resolve that these to whom this Epistle was addrest were the same to whom St. Paul's were formerly sent And it is evident that those were the Saints or Christians in all Achaia 2 Cor. 1. 1. And the same is doubtlesse implied by the phrase in every place 1 Cor. 1. 2. not in every place simply of the World for it was no Catholick Epistle but a particular admonition for particular faults incest c. but in that whole Porvince or Region of Achaia So that which Apollos is said to have done among them Apollos hath watered 1 Cor. 3. 6. appeares by the story Act. 18. 27. to have belonged to all Achaia And so what the Apostle writes to them of sending their offertory to Judaea 1 Cor. 6. 1. 2 Cor. 8. and 9. doth appeare by Rom. 15. 26. to appertaine to all Achaia Macedonia saith he and Achaia have pleased to make a contribution and 2 Cor. 9. 2. I know your forwardnesse that Achaia hath been ready above a yeare agoe Where the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 you and Achaia must needs be of the same latitude and so againe it is c. 11. 9. compared with v. 18. And so those of St. Paul and consequently this of Clement was not to the City of Corinth alone but to all the Churches of Achaia and if among them there were more Bishops than one there will certainly be no newes in that and if those Bishops according both to the nature of the word and the use of it in those dayes before and after Clement were styled sometimes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sometimes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 also then all is very agreeable to all that we contend for that there was one Bishop not a College of Presbyters in Clements dayes in every City And this is directly the importance of Clements words as they lie in the Epistle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Christ was sent out from God and the Apostles from Christ As my Father sent me so send I you And then to shew that the Bishops were in the same manner sent i. e. commissionated by them he addes that they i. e. the Apostles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 went out Preaching 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Therefore Preaching through Regions and Cities they constituted their first fruits for Bishops and Deacons Cities and Regions in the Plurall and Bishops and Deacons proportionable thereto And when he addes that they were thus made of their first fruits i. e. of those that were first converted by them and to this end that they might be officers of those which should after believe supposing that there were not many now that did so this is directly a description of those times of which Epiphanius speakes saying that when the Gospell began to be Preacht there was yet no neede of Presbyters but Bishops and Deacons served the turne And accordingly Deacons in those dayes were immediately made Bishops as is sufficiently knowne of Clement the Writer of this Epistle who was St. Peters Deacon and Bishop after him as is cleared in Dissert 5. c. 1. Sect. 11. And so much for that first testimony One thing onely more from hence they are desirous to conclude that in the first and purest times the custome was to choose Bishops in Villages as well as in great Cities grounded upon this that here the Apostles are said to have appointed Bishops 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as well as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But there is no ground of this conclusion in this testimony For 1. here is no mention of villages 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not Greek for them but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 't is the former not the latter which here we finde It is evident what is meant by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when it is joyned with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cities viz. Provinces which have each of them many Cities in them and when it is joyned with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Villages it sitly denotes Regions in which there are many Villages So saith Strabo of Asia 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Romans made that Region a Province and so in the Ecclesiastical writings 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a Province made up
and nothing yet replied to my answers and therefore must not for ever turne the same stone begin the same task againe But for the conceit which is here cited from Salmasius which I confesse I considered not so much before as to make any reply to it viz. That these Epistles were written when Episcopacy properly so called came into the â—hurch and that proved from hence because in all his Epistles he speakes highly in honour of Presbytery as well as of Episcopacy that so the people that had been accustomed to the Presbyterian Government might the more willingly and easily receive this now Government by Episcopacy and not be offended at the novelty of it It is evident how easily this may be retorted and the argument as firmely formed to conclude that Presbyters were then newly come into the Church and therefore to make the people inclinable to give them a willing Reception without being offended at the novelty of them he still speakes highly in honour of Episcopacy Such Arguments as these you will guesse from hence how incompetent they are to conclude matters of fact done so many hundred yeares agoe such is the question whether Ignatius wrote these Epistles or no It is much more probable that they wanted Arguments of any reall validity who are faine to fly to such Succors as these Yet one farther misadventure there is in forming or making use of this conceit For what is said in those Epistles concerning the honour due to Presbyters or the Presbytery is farre from looking favourably on the Presbyterian Government for certainly as long as there is a Bishop properly so called set over the Presbyters as they know there is in all those Epistles and as long as the Presbyters are to do nothing without commission from him as they knew also and even now quarrell'd at it that by him they are required to doe there is little show of the Presbyterian modell discernible no whit more than there was in England long before they covenanted to cast the Bishops out of the Church It being certaine that no community or equality of Presbyters taken into councell with the Bishop doth constitute the Government Presbyterian as long as there be any Bishops to have power over Presbyters Else had the Convocation of Deanes Archdoacons and Clerks fourteen yeares agoe been the platform of Presbyterian Government in England This is I conceive a full answer to every the most minute part or appearance of Argument here produced against these Epistles and is all that was proper here to be said concerning Ignatius whose Epistles as long as they have any authority with us let it be in the most Reformed purified Edition that ever was or can be hoped for there is evidence enough for the Apostolicall Institution of Bishops in the moderne notion of the word And if after all this they must have no authority for no other crime but because they are such punctuall Asserters of this Doctrine 'T is to little purpose farther to examine or inquire what Antiquity hath affirmed or practised in this matter Sect. V. Testimonies of Irenaeus The use of Presbyteri for Bishops YEt because their Method leads us forward to consider some other of the Antient Writers and I have promised so farre to comply with them I shall now in the next place attend them to the view of two of those Irenaeus and Tertullian p. 114. 115. where having acknowledged of them that they say that Apostles made Bishops in Churches Polycarpe in Smyrna Clemens at Rome c. all that they require of us to prove is that by the word Bishop is meant a Bishop as distinct from Presbyters and the reason why they thinke this needs proving is because both those Authors use the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bishops and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Presbyteri Seniores for the same thing the one calling Anicetus Pius Hyginus Telesphorus Xystus Presbyters of the Church of Rome in his Epistle to Victor the other calling the Presidents of the Churches Seniores in his Apologie and some other places are produced to the same purpose To this therefore I shall now briefly give answer i. e by concession that the same persons who by these two Authors are called Bishops are promiscuously called Presbyteri and Seniores also And therefore secondly that this question being thus farre as to the Names equally balanced betweene us they saying that Bishops signifies Presbyters in the moderne notion we that Presbyters signifies Bishops in the moderne notion some other Indications beside this of the Names must be made use of on either side toward the decision of it Of this sort there is no one offered to us by them and so as they have nothing to incline the balance their way so we have nothing to make answer to in that particular I shall therefore as the onely thing left for me to doe render some few Reasons why the words Bishop and Elders in these Authors must needs signifie Bishops in our Moderne sense And the first proofe as farre as concernes Ironaeus is because Irenaeus who useth these words promiscuously was himselfe a Bishop in our moderne notion and yet is by others in his own dayes call'd Elder of the Church of Lyons at that very time when he is acknowledged to be Bishop of it in our moderne sense of the word This I thus manifest in each part And first That Irenaeus was Bishop of Lyons in such a sense as we now use Bishop appeares by what Eusebius saith of him importing that he was Primate of all France 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith he he was Bishop of the Provinces through France Now this we know cannot be affirm'd of a moderne Presbyter who pretends not to any such wide and singular jurisdiction And this needs no farther proofe it being by D. Blondell in his Apologie for St. Hierome confest that 140. yeares after Christ i.e. nigh 40. yeares before this time the Government of the Church was in the hands of Bishops over all the World one in every Church set over all the rest of the Church For the second part then that at that time when he is thus an acknowleged Bishop and Archbishop he is yet called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elder of the Church I appeale to the Testimony of the Gallicane Church at that time as it lies recorded in Eusebius where in an Embassy performed by him in the name of the Martyrs of Lyons to Elentherius the Bishop of Rome we have these words concerning him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We have intreated our Brother and partaker Irenaeus to beare these Letters to you O Father Eleutherius and we beseech you to prize him at one very zealous of Christ's Covenant If we thought that
expedite it it was sure very reasonable to examine and observe what they which made most advantage of Hierome's authority should be found to say to this testimony of his for the Apostolical tradition of three orders And among these three principall persons offered themselves to our consideration D. Blondell Walo Messalinus or Salmasius and Lud. Capellus every of them having newly written on this subject and collected especially what Jerome had said of it Of these three the last was soone discerned to have dealt most prudently setting downe the other testimonies out of him but wholly omitting this The other two having not been so wary made use of another dexterity set downe the words but deferr'd their observations on them till some fitter season D. Blondell put it off to his sixt Section whereas upon examination he hath but three in his whole booke and so is certainly never likely to speake of it nor can be justly believed to have in earnest designed any such thing The other saith he expects more and better notes on it from Salmasius i.e. from himselfe in another booke viz. De Ecclesiastico Ordine and after a great volume come out of that subject 8. or 9. yeares after he yet never takes this place or his own promise into consideration This was all that my search produced and the taking notice of these plaine matters of fact the behaviours of these men in that which so much concern'd the whole cause to be taken notice of and laid to heart is all that was done by me and which is styled by these a triumphing over those learned Men. And I hope there was little of hard measure and as little of insolence in this Now because what these learned Men thus averted the doing is yet here said to be done by Smectymnuus and that if I had cast an eye on the vindication I should there have found that place of Hierome's answered I am now in the last place to obey their directions and consider the answer which from Smectymnuus they have set down for me And it is twofold the first is a civill denyall that there is any truth in the words For say they It is hard to conceive how this imparity can be properly called an Apostolicall Tradition when Jerome having mentioned John the last of the Apostles saith it was postea that one was set over the rest But is this the way of answering the place or salving the difficulty Hierome saith Bishops Presbyters and Deacons in the Church that sure is this imparity are an Apostolicall Tradition and they answer It is hard to conceive how it can be properly so called What is this but to make Hierom's words as soone as ever he saith any thing which accords not with their interest as unreconcileable with truth as with his own former words which they had cited from him And then how much kinder to Hierome was I than they who thought it necessary to affix a commodious meaning to his former words and interpret confuetudo the custome of the Church begun in the Apostles dayes that so in thus saying he might be reconcileable with himself when he called Episcopacy a tradition Apostolicall As for the reason which makes this so hard for them to conceive from Hierome's words I believe it hath no force in it For though after the mention of S. John's words in his second and third Epistle he saith that postea afterwards this imparity was introduced yet this proves not his opnion to be that it was not Apostolicall tradition It might be done after the writing of those Epistles and yet in St. John's time i. e. before his death And though I believe St. Hierome was mistaken in thinking there were no Bishops till then it would have had more truth in it if he had said there were no Presbyters till then yet for all that I cannot doubt but this was his opnion because as he no where saith any thing which is contrary to this so here be saith expresly that it was Apostolicall tradition which in his opinion it could not be if it were not in the Church in his opinion before St. John's death And so there is but little appearance of validity in their first Answer And for their second that is somewhat like the former viz. that with Hierome Apostolicall tradition and Ecclesiasticall custome are the same If this be true then certainly I did not amisse in thinking that when Hierome used consuetudo custome in opposition to Dominica dispositio Christ's appointment or institution I ought to interpret custome in that place by Apostolicall Tradition in the other For how Ecclesiasticall custome with him and Apostolicall Tradition should be the same and yet Ecclesiasticall custome may not be interpreted by Apostolicall tradition especially when the same man affirmes them both of the same thing I confesse I cannot apprehend But then secondly because I must suppose that by making them the same they must meane to bring downe Apostolicall tradition to signifie Ecclesiasticall custome not to advance custome to signify Apostolicall tradition in the same manner as when they make Bishop and Elder the â—ame they bring down Bishop to signifie Presbyter but will not allow Elder to signifie Bishop that also will be worth examining a while And 1. Can there be any reason to imagine that Hierome or any man should set down that for an instance of Apostolicall tradition which the same person doth not believe to be delivered by the Apostles but to be of a latter date That which is delivered by the Apostles and received and practiced by the Church may fitly be called a custome of the Church without adding or specifying that we meane the Apostolicall Church because the Apostles while they lived were a part of the Church and the following age was a part of the Church also But can it be truly said that that was delivered by the Apostles which was onely accustomed in the subsequent Church and not so much as introduced under the Apostles This certainly is another strange way of interpreting words or phrases quite contrary to all Lexicons or to the use of such words or phrases which unlesse they be changed it is as much as to say he that said Tradition Apostolicall did not meane Tradition Apostolicall And this sure will bring little credit to St. Hierome on whose authority they so much depend in this matter As for their proofe of what they say viz. because the observation of Lent which he saith ad Marcellum is Apostolica traditio is contra Luciferianos said by him to be Ecclesiae consuetudo that sure is not of force to conclude what they would have it for it may be or by him be deemed to be both an Apostolicall tradition and a custome of the hurch too it being very ordinary and reasonable that what the Apostles delivered the Church should also accustome and practice But could both these be said by him of that which he thought were but one of these That is