said to beare or carry in his Right-hand Apoc. 1. 16. 20. 1 2. an argument of competent validity may be drawne from thence that this dignity and power of them in the Church is if not immediately instituted yet approved and confirmed by Christ especially when in these so many parts of this Epistle Christ himselfe hath written to every of them under this title of honour and dignity In the presence of so much light that some Men should still continue blind is to be numbred among the prodigies of this worst and most unhappy age For as to that which from the one word yo◠in the plural c. 4. 24. I finde objected by some against so many single mentions of the Angels one in every Church that will immediately vanish c. 5. These words thus intirely set downe have a face very distant from that so much confidence and censoriousnesse that I am here charged with by the Provinciall Synod For 1. For the conclusion deduced from the mention of these Angels 't is not the Divine Right of Prelacy which phrase might yet have beene reconciled with rules of Sobriety and Modesty as well as the Jus Divinum of Presbytery but Christs approbation and confirmation of this dignity and power of Bishops which conclusion hath evident grounds in those Texts which mention Christ's holding them in his Hand and his addressing an Epistle to them supposing onely what is undertaken to be evidenced by other mediums that these Angels were single persons in each Church 6. Secondly that which is by me so confidently affirmed is not as this learned Assembly is pleased to suggest that these Angels were Metropolitans or Archbisops That they were such is afterwards as a distinct matter in the next Chapter proposed in a much more moderate style statim credibile fiet it will straitwayes become credible and with no more shew of confidence then the premises which are there at large set down will Authorize 7. These be two competent essayes to begin with by which we may proportion our expectations But there is yet a third which hath somewhat more of injustice in it to mention my so much confidence in asserting but never to take notice of the grounds produced whereon this confidence as farre as it extends is built the want of which is so constantly the one thing which renders confidence unseasonable or blameable that it is not in the power of any man to have apprehended grounds as proper to induce a conclusion and to suspend the beliefe and confidence of the truth of that conclusion which is so inferred The injustice I say is there not taking notice of the mediums whereon the confidence is founded very competent to inferre a conclusion in that stile wherein it was there inferred if they had been pleased to advertise their Readers of it 8. The inference lies thus The Angel of each Church of Asia was a single person therefore not a Colledge or Consistory of Presbyters and the singularity of the person is there supposed to be evidenced sufficiently by that which is so many times repeated in the Text the Angel of the Church of Ephesus the Angel of the Church of Smyrna and the like by the testimony of Andreas Caesariensis the Principall Annotator or Interpreter of the Revelation transcribed by Aretas in expresse words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the number of the Bishops equall to the number of the Churches and by the answer rendred to that one Objection which is brought by the Presbyterians against the singularity of the person of each Angel 9. Secondly this singular person was a Bishop in that notion of the word which signifies a precedence of power and dignity over all others in that Church This againe was made evident both by the forementioned singularity of his power and person in each Church and farther by the propriety of the title bestowed on him an Angel such as among the Jewes the chiefe Priest was styled Malac. 2. to which matter I shall now superadde one Testimony which Photius hath out of Diodorus Siculus concerning the Jewes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Him they call the High Priest and deeme him to be to them an Angel or Messenger of the commands of God a Commissioner of Heaven impowered from thence for the execution of his Office among them 10. This by the way gives us the reason of the denomination because as Angels doe not onely carry up our Prayers to God but also bring downe Gods Commands to us so did the High priest under the Law This dialect is also said to be derived from the Hebrewes to the Aegyptians who call their chiefe Priest Angel also And then how fitly the parallel runs betwixt the High Priest among the Jewes and the Bishop in the Christian Church taken in the Prelatists notion of him was a theme which seemed not to need any length of harangue to performe or illustrate it And yet after a Section spent to cleare that one difficulty of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 you in the plurall c. 2. 24. there are two Sections added more for the farther fortifying of this evidence 1. From the Councell of Chalcedon Act. 2. which from Timothy till the time of their Session numbers 27. Bishops in one of these Sees that of Ephesus all ordeined there and Timothy we know being ordeined by the laying on of St. Pauls hands 2 Tim. 1. 6. will divolve it to that Orginall Apostoliacll institution and 2. from Polycrates who was borne soone after St. Iohns dayes and is a witnesse of a competent antiquity and affirmes himselfe to be the eight Bishop of that See From both which testimonies of the Catologue and number of Bishops ascending to St. Timothy as the first of that ranke who certainly was constituted there before the Epistle of Christ to the Angel of that Church the conclusion is obvious and irrefragable that either Timothy or some successor of his was personally the Angel to which the Epistle was addrest and I professe not to wish for a greater evidence to justifie a Prelatist in his desire to live in obedience to that order so signally confirmed by Christ 11. The like is in the next Section produced out of Irenaeus l. 3. c. 3. concerning the Angel of the Church of Smyrna Irenaeus lived in the time of Polycarp that antient Primitive Martyr and being a youth had the honour to see that venerable old Man and of him he affirmes that he was not onely a Disciple of the Apostles and converst with many that saw Christ but that also hee was sent to Asia and constituted Bishop in the Church of Smyrna And if there needed any more light after so cleare and authentick a testimony which againe concludes either Polycarpe or some successor of his to be the Angel of the Church of Smyrna to whom Christ addresseth his Epistle there is another added out of Tertullian a Writer of great Antiquity and reputation for knowledge in the
so the Evangelist be a Bishop 3. Whatsoever Objections can be brought against this I shall not doubt will be easily answered but there is no offer of any here and therefore it will not be pertinent farther to treat it in this place 4. Secondly it must againe be remembred that what is here said of Timothy is proper to his person both from Onesimus and Polycarpe and all other Angels whether succeeding Timothy in Ephesus or praesiding in the other 7. Asian Churches and therefore though Timothy by being an Evangelist were rendred uncapable which yet he was not of being the Bishop of Ephesus in our sense yet those other seven Angels at the very time of the writing this Epistle of which none have been proved to be Evangelists may still be Bishops in our sense 5. Thirdly I shall demand upon the Assemblers principles who allow a Primus Presbyter a Prolocutor in their consistory or Councell of Presbyters might Timothy be that first Presbyter in the Church of Ephesus or did his being an Evangelist hinder him from being so when he was by St. Paul exhorted or appointed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to abide in that City I cannot imagine they will say he could not who give both St. Peter and St. John leave to call themselves Presbyters But if he could in their opinion then why might he not be a Bishop in our sense notwithstanding that he was an Evangelist as well as a Presbyter in theirs I foresee not what answer can be adapted to this Dilemma Section XIII Of the Bishops at Ephesus Of the plurall number in the Epistle to the Angel of Smyrna THere remaines a third branch of the Answer that it will not follow because Onesimus was Bishop of Ephesus in St. John's dayes that therefore he was the onely person to whom Christ wrote his Epistle For St. Paul tells us there were many Bishops at Ephesus besides the supposed Onesimus and Christ may very well write to him and to all the rest as well as him The like may be said concerning Polycarpe for our Saviour speakes to the Angel of the Church of Smyrna in the plurall number Rev. 2. 10. And therefore hee may truly be said to write to all the other Angels that were at Smyrna as well as to one 2. Here is nothing in this branch but what hath beene distinctly forestall'd and spoken to largely already it will suffice that we repeat the heads and leave the Reader to view the places where they are more explicitly handled And 1. though St. Paul should tell us that there were many Bishops at Ephesus as there might be from other Cities occasionally met there yet it would not follow that there were more than one Bishop of that City or consequently that Christ in a peculiar addresse to the Angel of that City could write to more Bishops there 3. But then secondly the whole truth is this that S. Luke and not St Paul tells that upon St. Pauls summons sent to Ephesus many Bishops met him at Miletus Ephesus being the chiefe Metropolis was the fittest meanes to convey the summons to the Cities neer it and from them and not onely from them and not onely from Ephesus came the Bishops to him as hath been declared out of Irenaeus 4. Thirdly for our Saviour's speaking to the Angel of the Church of Smyrna in the plurall number that is not punctually true for though the letter be written and inscribed to the Angel yet as hath oft been said the whole Church is concerned in the contents of it and so speaking to the Angel in the singular he may yet speake to the Church or any members thereof in the plurall number And so much againe to demonstrate the ineffectualnesse of the first Head of Answers Section XIV Of Beza's Interpretation of the Praesident THe second followes upon a supposition but not grant that these Angels were personae singulares and that the word Angel is to be taken individually yet they conceive this will not at all advantage the Episcopall cause For 1. Mr. Beza no great friend to Episcopacy acknowledgeth that by these words to the Angel is meant 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the Praesident as whom it behooved specially to be admonished touching those matters and by him both the rest of his Collegues and the whole Church likewise but then he addeth But that Episcopal degree which was afterward by humane invention brought into the Church of God certainly neither can nor ought to be from hence concluded Nay not so much as the Office of a perpetuall President should be of necessity as the thence arising Oligarchical tyranny whose head is the Antichristian beast now at length with the most certaine ruine not of the Church onely but of the word also maketh manifest By which quotation it is evident that though Beza held the Angel to be a singular person yet he held him to be Angelus Praeses not Angelus Princeps and that he was Praeses pro tempore just as a Moderator in an Assembly or as a Speaker in Parliament 2. To this I reply 1. that Mr. Beza's interpretation as it was foreknown and formerly mentioned by us so was it not in reason to be of any force or authority with us if it be but upon the score intimated here that he was not onely no great friend but a knowne profest enemy of Episcopacy and so was obliged to be by the course wherein he was engaged at Geneva All that his authority concludes is that to avoid a plaine testimony which is not for his turne a man may be induced to affirme that confidently for which he hath no ground of proofe nay wherein all wayes of evidence that th◠matter is capable of are absolutely against him 3. Thus 't is certainly in this matter for when Beza hath here acknowledged that the Angel was the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 President who will be the most competent Judge or Witnesse to determine what was meant by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Praesident in the Primitive Church what kind of Praesidency he had whether onely of place or order and that onely for a time or of superiority of power and office and that perpetuall In all reason this is to be fetcht from those first Writers which speake of it and either use the very word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 President for such a Bishop as we now assert a singular person in every Church having a power for life over all the Officers and Members of the Church and succeeding some Apostle or Apostolicall person in that power or else in other words affirme the same thing 4. Of this store of evidences are elsewhere produced in the explication of the severall titles by which this singular prefect was antiently knowne whether of Apostle in a secondary use of that word of Angel of Bishop of Elder of Ruler of Pastor of Doctor of Steward of President of Priest Against which the bare authority of Mr. Beza's name who hath fancied
inlarged to those that were in want It being Justin Martyr's affirmation of the first times that all the offerings were brought to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or President and that he was thereby made 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Curator of all that were in want And when what is sent to the Bishop is supposed to be sent to him as the Oeconomus or steward of the Church not for the inriching himself but to provide for those that wanted I cannot imagine why this may not be as conveniently supposed as that it should be sent to the Preâ—byters onely So in like manner the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Act. 14. 23. are Bishops againe and such and only such as farre as we have any footsteps of it were at that time ordained in the Churches one in every City where the Gospell was received with one or more Deacons to attend him And to this as the words so often mentioned out of Clemens Romanus are most evident that the Apostles of Christ preaching through Cities and Regions constituted their first fruits 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for Bishops and Deacons so the context in this place of the Acts is very agreeable For here when Paul and Barnabas had preacht and converted a competent number at Derbe v. 12. and returned to the Cities of Lystra Iconium and Antioch v. 22. coâ—firming the soules of the brethren i.e. the faithfull there it followes before their parting that they ordained Elders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in every Church that sure is in every of the Churches here named not many in each but Elders in all one Bishop in every Church which again is no news for me or any Praelatist to affirm when in the Epistle to Titus St. Paul's direction is conformable to his practice appointing him to ordaine Elders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 City by City or in every City c. 1. 5. and presently calling the Elder so to be ordained Bishop as in the Epistle to Timothy he is also called Thus much paines I shall not grudge to have taken if it be but to rescue a small booke very innocently meant from the charge of two suâ—h Paradoxes as they are called by those who have not thought fit to believe them and are as unwiling that others should and therefore conclude their discourse against them with tragicall expressions of offering manifest violence to the Scriptures of being sufficient instead of upholding Episcopacy to render it odious and contemptible c. And when they have said so much with so little weight of reason to justifie it they will then part with all meeknesse and perfect temper but we forbeare i.e. abstaine to adde more when they had said as much ill as could be I am sorry there was still any more bitternesse within to be supprest when there was so much vented However it is we are now at end of a second post and to have time to breath a while after some lassitude CHAP. III. Concerning the Opinion of Antiquity in this Question Sect. 1. The Testimonies of Clemens Romanus Bishops and Deacons the onely offices at the first Corinth Metropolis of Achaia What 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifie The Apostles care to prevent contentions about Episcopacy Hegesippus's testimony of the contentions at Corinth Clement a Bishop SOme things there are yet behind in their Appendix wherein I discerne my selfe to be concern'd in some directly and immediately in others by remoter obligation as when some of those testimonies of Antiquity which are in the Dissertations manifested to be perfectly reconcileable with our pretensions and some of them evident confirmations of them are yet by these Writers crudely taken up and made use of as Testimonies on their side without ever taking notice of that which is said in the Dissertations to cleare the contrary Of the former sort wherein I am more immediately pointed at there are foure things First Concerning one testimony of St. Hierome Secondly concerning Ignatius his Epistles in generall and the appeales that I make to hâ—s authoriâ—â— which they will not allow to have force with them Thirdly concerning one testimony cited by them out of St. Ambrose on Ephes 4. and answered by me but that answer disliked and rejected by them Fourthly concerning the Chorepiscopi Of the second sort are the testimonies out of Clemens Romanus Polycarpe Irenaeus and Tertullian especially the two former of them I shall therefore briefly survey every one of these and I suppose I have pitcht on the most convenient Method and that which will give the Reader the clearest view both of the judgement of Antiquity concerning Episcopacy in generall to which their Appendix professeth wholly to be designed and more particularly of the truth of those two propositions which have been accused as Paradoxes in me but will now appeare not to be such by taking these testimonies as they lie in the order of time wherein the Authors lived and then that of St. Hierome which happens to be first mentioned by them p. 102. will fall to be one of the last to which we shall make reply First then for Clemens they thus begin sure we are that Clemens who lived in the first century in his famous Epistle to the Corinthians an undoubted piece of antiquity makes but two Orders of Ministery Bishops and Deacons And having set downe the place which testifies this * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and rendered it thus Christ Iesus sent his Apostles through Countries and Cities in which they preached and constituted the first fruits approving them by the spirit for Bishops and Deacons to those who should afterwards believe From hence they observe p. 105. That Bishops and Deacons were the onely orders of Ministâ—ry in the first Primitive Church And that the Apostles appointed but two Officers that is Bishops and Deacons to bring men to believe because when he had reckon'd up three Orders appointed by God amongst the Jewes High-Priest Priests and Levites coming to recite Orders appointed by the Apostles under the Gospell â—e doth mention onely Bishops and Deacons And here one would think were little for the Presbyterians advantage even no more than one of my Paradoxes would have afforded them which from this very testimony and some other concluded that which was then so strange for them to heare yet now can be confest by them that the Apostles at their first plantations contented themselves with Bishops and Deacons one of each or perhaps more of the latter in every City But when these men thus grant the conclusion from this place which I inferr'd I have yet no reason to boast of their liberality because I suppose it their meaning that by Bishops Clemenâ—â— meant Preâ—byters though this they do not so much as say in twice repeating of their conclusion And yet certainly it needed more than saying proving by some evidence or argument that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bishops in that place signifies any thing else but Bishops All that they offer toward a reason
Records of the Church in these words As the Church of Smyrna relates Polycarpe to have beene constituted there by John as the Church of Rome affirmes Clement to have been ordeined by Peter so in like manner the rest of the Churches exhibite the Records of those whom they have had their Bishops constituted by the Apostles and conveyers of the Apostolicall seed to them And more particularly of the Churches of Asia the subject of our present discourse We have the Churches fed by John and the course of Bishops being driven to the Originall acknowledge John the Apostle to be the Author of them Here certainly is light enough to make some confidence excusable in a Prelatist and to make his wonder seasonable that any that have eyes should in so cleare a Sunshine want the use of them and to thinke it no very auspicious omen that they doe Yet because I had much rather assist then upbraid other mens infirmities I have here given them an instance how easie it had been for them to have informed themselves and their respective charges of the grounds of the Prelatists confidence that the Epistle of Christ to the Angels of the seven Asian Churches was an evidence of his approbation of the Order of Bishops in our moderne notion of that word for a single overseer in every Church 12. And if there be any obscurity still remaining in the premises because the Councell of Chalcedon and Policrates makes Timothy who was ordained by Paul the first Bishop or Angel of the Church of Ephesus but Tertullian divolves the Originall of the course or Catalogue to St John the answer is easy that there were two sorts of Christians in Ephesus and throughout all Asia the first of Gentile converts brought into the faith by St. Paul the Apostle of the Gentiles and over them it was that Timothy was by him placed in Ephesu◠their Bishop the second of Jewish Proselites converted by St. John by compact designed to goe to the Jewes as his Province Gal. 2. 9. and those peculiarly the Asian Jewes as appeares every where in Eusebius story and by the relation of his death in that place given us by Polycrates an early Bishop there and the Author of the constiuations out of an antient tradition tells us that another of the same name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was by that Apostle ordained Bishop of the Iewish Christians there as Timothy by S. Paul of the other Congregation of Gentile Christians An observation which is largely educed and exemplified in the Dissertations and of which there is no small use for the dilucidating of obscurities in antient story and the clearing of this controversy betwixt us and the Presbyterians but I must not here take liberty to inlarge on it unnecessarily having beene thus farre forced to expatiate somewhat above proportion to the length of their owne period wherein my confidence and censoriousnesse were shortly accused how deservedly I hope hath now been made manifest Section II. Of Timothy of Onesimus of Polycarpe The next period in their charge against mee runs thus It is farther added that some of the Antient Fathers mention the very men that were the Angels of those Churches Some say Timothy was Bishop of Ephesus when John wrote his Epistle to it Others say Onesimus others say that Policarpe was Bishop of Smyrna And from hence they conclude with a great deale of plansibility that the Angell of the Churches were seven individuall Bishops 2. Here is as yet no great charge offered but a confession rather that I had some temptation for the confidence of which I was formerly accused my conclusion being acknowledged by the adversaries to be inferred with a great deale of plausibility But I have not so much reason to depend on their civilities as to omit the inserting here what may be usefull to prevent mistakes and shall therefore thinke it necessary to set downe intirely what it is which I have affirmed in this matter 3. And 1. I have yet no where said that Timothy was Bishop of Ephesus when John writ this Epistle to that Church My words are expresly otherwise Ex quibus patet vel Timotheum ipsum vel aliquem ei succedaneum hunc ipsum Angelum fuisse quem c. 2. 1. Christus alloquitur By which it appeares having formerly set down my grounds to induce this conclusion that either Timothy himself or some body that succeeded him was that very Angel to whom Christ addrest his speech c. 2. 1. But that is not to affirme it of Timothy but purposely to absteine from affirming any thing that could be denyed or doubted and onely to affirme it either to Timothy or some successor of his which evidently and infallibly it must be if there be truth in the premise from which it was inferred the words of the Councell and the Father that after Timothy the first succeeded of continuall series of Bishops there 4. What my opinion is in this matter I shall now freely tell them though before I had not occasion to doe it together professing it to be onely my opinion and so still affirming nothing in a matter of some uncertainty or farther than the grounds on which my opinon is founded shall appeare able to support it My opinion briefly is that Timothy was then Bishop of Ephesus at the time of addressing that Epistle to the Angel of that Church And the grounds are these 1. That St. Johns banishment and prophesying are by Epiphanius twice expresly affirmed to have been 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the times of Claudius Caesar Then secondly that as it is by Chronologers set downe to be in the 13. of Claudius that Timothy was left by Paul at Ephesus when hee went into Macedonia 1 Tim. 1. 3. Act. 20. so it is generally resolved that Timothy suffered at Ephesus under Nerva and that agreeable enough with his age who appeares to be young when Paul first placed him Bishop of Ephesus If these grounds have truth in them then Timothy cannot be doubted to be Bishop of Ephesus when St Johns vision was received And though 't is true that Ireneus seemes to assigne another date of these visions at least of some of them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 at the end of Domitians Reigne which what it is to be deemed to signifie is elsewhere explained yet still that is within the compasse of Timothies life if hee suffered not till Nerva's Reigne And so much for that of Timothies 5. Secondly that Onesimus was Bishop of Ephesus at the date of that Epistle is no where so much as intimated to be my opinion much lesse affirmed by me And therefore I need reply no more to that Yet because Ignatius in his Epistle to the Ephesians mentions Onesimus their Bishop and that Testimony is produced by me Dissert 2. c. 25. Sect. 9 I shall here freely give them my opinion also of that matter 6. First that there is little ground of question but
by the view of them And the first they produce is this 25. The Apostles went about ordeining Presbyters in every Church Act. 14. 23. 26. But surely this is an infirme argument Every Church signifies without question more Churches than one viz. Derbe Lystra Iconium Antioch v. 20. 21. And if in each of those one 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be supposed to be ordeined that certainly will satisfie the importunity of that Text and the mention of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elders in the plurall viz. foure Elders in those so many Churches And if because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is in the singular number they therefore thinke that those plurall Elders must be ordeined in each of those Churches This is too grosse a mistake for Scholers to be guilty of it being certaine that that is not the importance of the phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 any more than of the English Church by Church or in every Church i.e. more Elders in more Churches one in every one 27. Their next proofe is from Act. 20. 17. Paul called for the Elders of the Church of Ephesus one of these seven Churches and calls them Bishops and commits the whole government of the Church to them The like may be said of the other six Churches 28. What may be said of Ephesus I grant may be said of the other six Churches but the Text no where affirmes it of Ephesus and so the analogy will no way prove it of the rest All that the Text saith is this And from Miletus he sent to Ephesus and called the Elders of the Church This is not to say the Elders as that signifies Presbyters in our moderne notion of the one City and so Church of Ephesus but the Elders i.e. Bishops either of the Asian Church of that whole Region or at least of the Ephesine Province the neighbouring Bishops of the Churches or Cities that were under that Metropolis of Ephesus who by St. Paul's sending his summons to Ephesus the chiefe City of the one and chiefe Metropolis of the other which consequently had daily meanes of communicating intelligence to those other Cities might thus most commodiously be advertised of St. Paul's comming and provide to meet him at Miletus 29. That this is no strain'd interpretation or answer is elsewhere evidenced and may summarily appeare by these two testimonies one of Irenaeus here formerly mentioned l. 3. c. 14. ab Epheso reliquis proximis civitatibus convocatos esse that they were called from Ephesus and the rest of the neerest Cities adjoyning to it This is an expresse evidence which being allowed puts the whole matter out of question And although in a matter of fact a testimony of so credible a person that lived so neere the times being an auditour of Polycarpe the first Bishop of Smyrna and is not contradicted by any contemporary is of a competent authority and need not any other Topickes to assist it yet for the removing all possible prejudices from it and rendring it yet more indubitable I shall a little farther enlarge for the confirming of it 30. And 1. the Apostle at his meeting with them v. 18. begins in this style yee know from the first day that I came into Asia after what manner I have been with you at all seasons An addresse to them either as to the Elders of Asia indefinitely as many as could conveniently come to Miletus at that time or at least as to more than to the Elder or Elders if that could be truly pretended of one City of Asia peculiarly or exclusively to all others 31. So againe v. 25. And now behold I know that yee all among whom I have gone preaching the Kingdome of God shall see my face no more This evidently addresses the speech not onely to the inhabitants of one City but to all those as many as were then present among whom hee had gone preaching the Faith of Christ and that we know was done by him to the other Cities and not onely to that of Ephesus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in passage though not so solemnly as at Ephesus going through all the Region and preaching the Gospell to all saith Oecumenius on 2 Joh. And so t is expresly said Act. 19. 21. that after the two yeares and three moneths spent at Ephesus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he staid and spent some time in Asia And accordingly v. 26. Demetrius truely saith that not onely at Ephesus but almost throughout all Asia Paul had perswaded and turned away the people 32. Secondly then the Faith being before this time successefully propagated through all Asia and not onely in this one City of Ephesus there were without question Churches accordingly gathered and compacted in many other Cities as well as in Ephesus before this time of Paul's parting never to see them againe And not onely in the other Metropolis six more of which are owned by the Objectors Smyrna and the rest Rev. 1. but also in the lesser Cities which were not Metropoliticall and yet more especially in those Cities which were neerest Ephesus and which as belonging to that Metropolis had frequent resort thither to the Assises which were there kept Act. 19. 38. and so must be supposed to have received speciall influences from the Apostle's residing there for the space of two yeares and three moneths Act. 19. 8. 10. 33. To which purpose it must againe be remembred that as Timâ—thy is by Eusebius styled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bishop of the Province that belongs to Ephesus l. 3. c. 4. which is all one as to make that a Metropolis over other Cities and accordingly in the order of Metropoliticall Sees at the end of Codinus the Bishop of Ephesus is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Primate of all Asia so Ignatius in Traâ—an's time is by joynt consent of the antients affirmed to have written Epistles to two Churches Magnesia and Trallis which are known to be Cities under this Metropolis of Ephesus and to have named the Bishops of each Damas of the one and â—olybius of the other 34. And as there is no question among any but that Ignatius wrote such Epistles to those Churches Salmasius cites that to the Trallians expresly as the Epistle of Ignatius which certainly he would never have done if he had doubted whether ever Ignatius wrote to them and indeed all that is questioned by him and D. Blondell is but this whether the Epistles now extant under his name be genuine or no not whether Ignatius as all writers accord wrote seven Epistles of which these which we now speake of are two so there is no ground of imagining that they were of a later plantation than that which is here recorded to be wrought by St. Paul Act. 19. All Asia having then heard the Faith v. 10. and received it in a remarkable manner v. 20. and a great dore saith St. Paul being opened to him at Ephesus peculiarly which must needs have influence on the Cities next adjoyning to it in
a speciall manner 35. To this I shall adde thirdly that as Aristides saith of Ephesus that it was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the common magazine or store-house of Asia 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 their refuge for all wants so it must needs be the fittest way of conveying intelligence speedily to all the Cities of Asia especially the proximae civitates as Irenaeus said the Cities next adjoyning and so most commodious to assemble those other Bishops to Paul at Miletus and not only him or those that are supposed to have resided at Ephesus 36. And accordingly we finde in Eusebius that the Epistle of Antonius â—ius concerning the Christians which was to be communicated to all Asia 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was proclaimed or divulged at Ephesus in the common meeting of Asia as the readiest way to make it universally knowne 37. All which being premised and withall that there is no reason to imagine that St. Paul at the time of his fimall parting taking his solemne last leave of them v. 38. should not so much consider as to call for or desire to see any of the rest of his Sonnes the Governours of the Inferiour Churches to whom he had committed that numerous flock which was now so universally in such danger of Wolves save onely those of the one Church of that one City of Ephesus supposing there had been more than one there This will be a very competent confirmation of Irenaeus his testimony that indeed thus it was as he hath delivered that the Bishops of the Cities neerest adjoyning to Ephesus as many as by summons from thence could speedily be called together in all reason the Bishops of the Cities which were under that Metropolis were sent to meet the Apostle at Miletus and accordingly met him there 38. The second testimony is that maxime of the Greeke Scholiast on 1 Pet. 1. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Booke of the Acts calls the Bishops Elders which being avow'd by me in the Dissertations and cleared through all the places in the Acts they ought by all Lawes of disputing either to have endeavoured the refuting of what is there said or the proving that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elders must needs there signifie Presbyters in the moderne notion which having not here attempted to doe there is no kinde of force in what is here dictated nothing said but what had beene long since largely and clearely answered 39. Yet because in the next Chapter where this place of the Acts is viewed againe one argument I see produced in favour of their pretensions which they found in an observation of mine I shall thinke my selfe concern'd to give an account of it 40. It is this Pag. 85. If the Apostle by the Elders of the Church had meant the Bishops of the Church of all Asia he would have said not the Elders of the Church but of the Churches It is an observation made use of by one of those that makes use of this answer we are now confuting That when the Scripture speakes of Churches in Cities it alwayes useth the singular number as the Church of Jerusalem the Church of Corinth c. but when it speakes of provinces where there are many Cities then it uses the plurall number as the Churches of Judaea and the Churches of Asia Rev. 1. 11. According to this observation if the Apostle had meant of the Bishops of all Asia he would have said the Elders of the Churches whereas he calls them Elders of the Church v. 17. and so must meane the Elders of the Church of Ephesus and so meere Presbyters not Bishops 41. But herein is a manifest mistake For the observation is not made as is here suggested of Churches in Cities and Provinces that the former of them are constantly to be understood where there is mention of a Church in the singular number without any name of particular City added to it and that when a Province is mention'd 't is alwayes done by Churches in the plurall number This is the sense on which their argument is founded But if the Reader consult the Dissertations p. 190. He shall finde there is no such thing 't is onely this That in the New Testament there is mention made of Churches in the plurall number the Churches of Judaea of Samaria of Galilee of Syria of Cilicia of Galatia of Asia of Macedonia whereas in other places there was as frequent mention of a Church in the singular the Church in Jerusalem in Antioch in Cenchrea in Corinth of the Thessalonians of Ephesus of Smyrna of Pergamus of Thyatira of Sardis of LaodicaeaÌ„ 42. The cause of that difference is there said to be this that Judaea c was the name of a Province in which there being many Cities there were consequently many Churches and Bishops in them whereas one City with the territory adjoyning to it being ruled by one single Bishop was to be called a singular Church and therefore that which is said to be done in every Church Acts 14. 13. is said to be done in every City Tit. 1. 5. The sum of which observation is onely this that one City with the territory adjoyning to it never makes above one Church in the Scripture style whereas a Province or Country or Nation consists of many Cities and so of many Episcopall Sees or Churches 43. This was all that was said in that place or that was usefull to be said in order to the end to shew the Originall of Metropolitanes there And what a wresting of a plaine obvious observation is it to conclude it from hence to be my assertion that when that must be whensoever or else the conclusion cannot be deducible from it the Scripture speakes of a Province it is in the plurall number It doth sometimes do so and that was all that was usefull to me If it had done so but once though twenty times it had done the contrary it had been sufficient for some reasonable account there must be for the doing it once and what could that be but the number of the Cities and so of Churches in each Province or Nation much more when there were so many examples of it 44. But this is not to affirme that it alwayes doth so especially when being left at large without any restraint not the Church of Ephesus or the like but indofiniâ—ely the Church it is very capable of another interpretation For sure when I wrote that I had not forgotten my Creede or in it the name Church in the singular number which by the adjunct of Catholike must needs be more than the Church of one City And having read Mat. 16. where the whole Church of Christ is called my Church in the singular a like phrase to that of the Church of God which the Bishops here are commanded to feed and in the one Epistle to the Ephesiaâ—s having six examples of the word Church in the singular each signifying evidently the universall Church I might very well be allowed
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
the same as hath beene cited from Ignatius that all the world over the Bishops were ordained by the Apostles according to the minde of Christ In his Dial. adv Luciferian Ecclesiae salus in summi sacerdotis dignitate pendit cui si non exors quaedam ab omnibus eminens detur potestas tot in Ecclesiis efficientur Schismata quot sacerdotes and Si quaeris quare in Ecclesiâ baptizatus nisi per manus Episcopi non accipiat spiritum sanctum disce hanc observationem ex â—a authoritate descendere quod spiritus sanctus ad Apostolos descendit The safety of the Church depends on the dignity of the chiefe Priest or Bishop to whom if a peculiar power be not given above all that others have there will be as many Schisms as Priests in the Churches If you demand why he that hath been baptized in the Church may not receive the Holy Ghost but by the hands of the Bishop learne that this observance dâ—scends from that Authority in that the holy spâ—it descended on thâ— Apostles 〈◊〉 Testimoâ—y as it shewes the necessity of a singular Bishop to avoid Schisms in the Church and so must affixe the institution of them on the Apostles who made provision against that danger and that I suppose is his meaning in that place which the Presbyterians make most use of so it directly derives the authority by which Bishops stand in the Church distinct from Presbyters and above them from the descent of the Holy Ghost on the Apostles Lastly adv Jovinian 〈◊〉 Episcopâ— Presbyter Diaconus non sunt meritorum nomina sed offiâ—iorâ—m Nec dicitur si quis Episcopatum desilerat The Bishop and Presbytâ—r and Deacon are names of offices neither is it said If any man dâ—siâ—e a Bishoprick applying those Texts of Saint Paul concerning the qualifications of Bishops to the Bishop as in his time he stood distinct from Presbyters All this I supose may suffice to give authority to my collection and conclusion from plaine words of Saint Hierome that his meaning was as plaine and undubitable that Episcopacy was delivered downe and instituted in the Church by the Apostles themselves And I cannot conceive what can be invented to avoid the evidence of these testimonies yet because I promised it I shall now adde that one argument ex abundanti and much more than is necessary to the same purpose viz. to prove that this was Hierome's meaning which I pretend it to be And that such as by these objectors cannot with justice be denyed to have a full irrefragable force in it having themselves made use of it against us which they ought not to have done if by themselves it shall now be denyed when it is produced by us In the close of their Appendix they have set downe several propositions declaring the judgement and practice of the Antient Church about ordination of Ministers and their first proposition being this that in the first and purest times there was ordination of Presbyters without Bishops over Presbyters their proofe is this For these Bishops came in postea and pâ—ulâ—tim afterward and by little and little as Jerome saith And Panormitan lib. 1. Decretal de Consuetud cap. 4. saith Olim Presbyteri in communi regebant Ecclesian◠〈◊〉 sacerdotes pariter conferebant omnia sacramenta Of old the Elders ruled the Church in common and ordained Priests and joyntly conferred all the Sacraments These two testimonies of Hierome and Panormitan being brought to prove the same proposition concerning ordination by Presbyters and the time of Bishops coming in to the Church It must sure be reasonable to resolve that what Panormitan hath defined in this matter that was Saint Hieromes sense also Now what that is will be discerned by setting downe Panormitane's words at large as they lye in the place cited by them The businesse he hath there in hand is to prove that custome is not of force so farre as to prescribe that an Ordinary Clerk as Presbyter shâ—uld performe an Episcopal act Ea quae sum ordinis Episcopalis non possunt acquiri per ordinem inferiorem ex consuitudine quantamcunque veâ—ustissimâ Those things that are of Episcopal order cannot be any custome how antient soever be acquired by any Inferiour order The reason is quia consuetudo non facit quem capacem because custome doth make no man capable Then he makes this observation that Ritus Apostol orum circa sacramenta habent impedire characterus impressionem The rites or practice or Institutions of the Apostles about the Sacraments have power to hâ—nd â—the impression of the Character nam immediate post mortem Christiâ—omâ—es Presbyteri in communi regebant ecclesiam non fuerant inter ipsos Epiâ—scopi sed idem Presbyter quod Epiâ—copus pariter conferebant omnia sacramenta sed postinodum ad Schismata sedâ—nda fecerunt seu ordinaverunt Apostoli ut crearentur Episcopâ— certa sacramenta iis reservarunt illa interdicendo simplicibus Presbyteris For immediately after the death of Christ all thâ— Elders in common ruled the Church and so there were no Bishops among them but a Presbyter was the same that a Bishop and they joyntly conferred all the Sacraments But after a while for the appeasing of Schismes the Apostles caused or ordained that Bishops should be created and reserved to them some Sacraments or holy Rites forbidding single Presbyters to meddle with them and he concludes Et vides hic quod talis ordinatio habet impedire etiam impressionem Characteris quia si Presbyteri illa de facto conferunt nihil conferunt and here you see that such an Ordination is able to hinder the impression of the Character because if Presbyters doe de facto confer them they confer nothing Where as Panormitan cited by them to prove Ordination without Bishops and specious words pickt out of him to that purpose doth yet distinctly affirme that Presbyters which confer Orders without a Bishop conferre nothing all their Ordinations are meere nullities and what could have been said more severely against their practice and their designe in citing him than this so he plainly interprets St. Jeromes assertion of the occasion and time of Bishops being set over the Presbyters that it was done by the appointment of the Apostles themselves and so that consuetudo custome in Jerome opposed to Christ's disposall is no more than postmodum ordinaverunt Apostoli after a while the Apostles ordeined opposed to immediatè post mortem Christi immediately after the death of Christ And then by the way as the Reader may hence discerne what force there is in this Testimony of Panormitan to support their first proposition concerning the Ordination of Presbyters without Bishops over Presbyters for which besides St. Jeromes postea and paulatim and part of this testimony of Panormitan they produce no other and as by what was formerly said of the Testimonies of Cyprian and Firmilian their chiefe supports for their second proposition
Secondly that though the one Angel of the Church be the person to whom each part of the Epistle is addrest yet in it are set downe the sins and fate of the whole Church i. e. of all the believers in it Thus when the people of Israel or Judah were fallen into foule sins and provocations against God it was ordinary for God to send a Prophet to the King of either of them and admonish him what reformations were to be wrought and what judgements were a comming in case of neglect In which kind of messages of the Prophet delivered to the King 't is certaine that the whole people were concerned and so without question was it here Rev. 2. 10. the Devill shall cast some of you i. e. some Members of that Church into prison c. and so ver 13. among you i. e. among you of that Church or City 10. And indeed if each of those Churches had been governed by a Consistory of co-equal Presbyters and those as is pretended by our adversaries signified by the Angel yet there would be as little reason to doubt but the sins of the people as well as the Clergy were here reprehended by Christ and the judgement threatned to one as well as to the other And to this can be no reason to inferre the Angel to be no singular person the Church ruled by one making up a multitude as well as if it were ruled by a Presbytery 11. As for the place cap. 2. 24. concerning Thyatira that hath a different appearance For the Greek copie ordinarily reading it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But I say unto you in the plural and to the rest which are in Thyatira the you in the plural is by the Objectors thought necessarily to belong to the Angel of that City as the rest to the community of the people To this place therefore we have formerly answered that the reading in the Antient Manuscripts particularly in that belonging to the Kings Library at Saint James's leaves out the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and and reads thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But to you I say the rest which are in Thyatira And this takes away all force from the objection for the former part of the Epistle belonging to the Angel who permitted Jezabel and to them that committed fornication with her the But in the front separates the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 you the rest from the Angel and those other formerly spoken to and therefore the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 you cannot possibly be the Angel wherein all the strength of the Objection consists 12. But this Answer though taken notice of is disliked For say they he that shall view the Antecedent and Consequent and consider that ver 23. it is said I will give to every one of you c. and then followes but I say unto you and then in the conclusion of the verse I will put upon you no other burthen will confesse that the old copies are better than that which is said to be Tecla's Manuscript 13. And here I shall desire the Reader to beare me company in obeying their directions and observe what the Antecedents and Consequents can afford to the prejudice of that Antient copy 'T is most true that v. 23. we read I will give to every one of you and that then it followes v. 24. But I say unto you and in the conclusion of the verse I will put upon you But I demand what will they conclude from hence That by the word you in all these places the same persons are to be understood and that those persons are the interpretation of the Angel v. 18 These two things they must conclude or else they will faile in their designe which is to shew that by the word Angel the collective body of Rulers is meant But the first of these is evidently false whatsoever reading be retained for besides that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But doth clearly separate the second you from the first and makes them distinct persons The very matter of the speeches will convince it For in the 23. v. the you are those that were corrupted by Iezabel v. 20. 22. who are now to be exemplarily punisht and destroyed I will kill her i. e. Iezebels children with death as also those that had committed Fornication with her v. 22. and all the Churches shall know that I am the searcher of hearts and I will give to every of you according to your workes But the second you and so also the third are the quite contrary to these As many as have not this Doctrine and who have not knowne these depths of Satan and consequently who are not to be punished nor so much as admonished but onely confirmed in their present practice to hold fast what they have already 14. So contrary is it to all appearance of truth that the Antecedent and Consequent should favour their pretension 15. This matter is so evident the contrary conditions and fates of the you in v. 23 and the you in v. 14. that if the ordinary reading were to be retained 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and that rendred to you and the rest in Thyatâ—ra so as to difference you and the rest another Antecedent to the Relative you must necessarily be sought out and then that can be no other but the Churches incidentally mentioned v. 23. who had not been charged for this crime For as for the Angel v. 18. if hee were not so remote 6. verses off and if the singular number could be the Antecedent to the plurall 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 you as it cannot yet still he is charged for suffering the Woman Jezabel and so is numbred among the gulity persons that are to repent or be punisht and not to have no other burthen laid on them save only to hold fast what they have as is said of the second 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 you v. 24. 16. But the truth is that of making the Churches the Relative is so inconvenient and yet no other way imaginable to reconcile the ordinary reading and the whole sense is so much more cleare and current in the reading of the King's M S. But to you the rest in Thyatira those that had not beene guilty of the misbehaviours censured and threatned in the former Verses that I professe I cannot discerne any appearance of reason to quesion the truth of it much lesse to conceive that the ordinary copies are better which yet however they read it must oppose the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 you to those before mentioned and so cannot apply it with any appearance of probability to the Angel or consequently pre-judge ours or confirme their pretensions Section IX Of the Elders at Ephesus Act. 20. A Second reason to prove the Angel to be a collective body is this because it is certaine that the Church of Ephesus was a collective body and that there were many Presbyters to whom St. Paul at his finall departure from them committed the charge of that Church
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