A Treatise of Episcopacy, Part 1 · Chapter 5 (3 of 3)

A Treatise of Episcopacy · Part 1 · Chapter 5 (3 of 3)

p. 914. And 1 Cor. 4. 15. I ſcarce think that Paul would have had occaſion to ſay [Though you have ten thouſand inſtructers] if they had not had qualified Perſons enow to afford them one or two for Presbyters.

Cap. 2. proving no more of any one Apoſtles fixed Epiſcopacy, he cometh to their ſecondary Biſhops or Apoſtles: And whereas we judge, that Apoſtles, and Evangeliſts, and the Apoſtles Aſſiſtants were unfixed Miniſters, appropriating no Churches or Dioceſſes to themſelves in point of Power, but planting, ſetling, and confirming Churches in an itinerant way, and diſtributing their Provinces onelyonly arbitrarily and changeably, and as the Spirit guided them at the preſent time of their work; and that Biſhops and Elders were ſuch Paſtors as theſe Church-gatherers fixed in a ſtated relation to particular Churches; ſo that an Apoſtle was a Biſhop eminenter, but not formaliter; and that a Biſhop, as ſuch, was no Apoſtle in the eminent ſenſe, but was alſo an itinerant Preacher limitedly, becauſe while he overſaw his Flock he was alſo to endeavour the converſion of others, as far as his opportunity allowed him: I ſay, this being our judgment, this learned Doctor ſuppoſeth Apoſtles, as ſuch, to be Biſhops, and the fixed Biſhops, as ſuch, to be ſecond Apoſtles. And I ſo avoid contending about Names, even where it is of ſome importance to the Matter, that I will not waſte my time upon it till it be neceſſary. In § 1. he telleth us, that theſe ſecond Apoſtles were made partakers of the ſame Juriſdiction and Name with the firſt, and either planted and ruled Churches, or ruled ſuch as others had planted. Anſw. 1. We doubt not but the Apoſtles had indefinite itinerant Aſſiſtants, and definite fixed Biſhops placed by them as aforeſaid: But the indefinite and the definite muſt not be confounded. 2. And were not Luke, Mark, Timothy, and other itinerant Evangeliſts, as ſuch, of the Clergy, and ſuch Aſſiſtants or ſecondary Apoſtles? Exclude them, and you can prove none but the fixed Biſhops: But if they were, why did you before deny Evangeliſts, Diſſert. 3. cap. 6. the power of the Keys, and make them meer converting Preachers, below Doctors and Paſtors, and the ſame with Deacons? whereas Paul, Epheſ. 4. 11. doth place them before Paſtors and Teachers. But avoiding the Controverſie de nomine, call them what you will, we believe that theſe itinerant Aſſiſtants of the Apoſtles were of that One ſacred Office commonly called the Prieſthood or Miniſtry, though not yet fixed; and that the aſſigning them to particular Churches did not make them of a new Order, but onelyonly give them a new object and opportunity to exerciſe the Power which they had before; and that Philip and other Deacons were not Evangeliſts meerly as Deacons (which term denoteth a fixed Office in one Church), but by a further Call: And that you never did prove, that ever the Scripture knew one Presbyter that had not the power of the Keys, as Biſhops have; yea, you confeſs your ſelf the contrary. All therefore p. 92that followeth in that Chapter, and your Book, of James the Juſt, and Mark, and others having Epiſcopal power, is nothing againſt us: The thing that we put you to prove is, that ever the Apoſtles ordained ſuch an Officer as a Presbyter that hath not Epiſcopal Power and Obligation too, as to his Flock; that is, the Power of governing that Church according to God's Word.

And I would learn, if I could, whether all the Apoſtles which ſtaid long at Jeruſalem, while James is ſuppoſed to be their Biſhop, were not Biſhops alſo with him? Whether they ceaſed to be Apoſtles to the People there? Or whether they were Apoſtles, and not Biſhops? And whether they loſt any of their Power by making James Biſhop? And whether one Church then had not many Biſhops at once? And if they made James greater than themſelves, Whether according to your Premonition they did not give a Power or Honour which they had not (which you think unanſwerable in our Caſe)?

Cap. 4. come in the Angels of the Churches, Rev. 1, 2, & 3. of which (though the matter be little to our Cauſe) I have ſaid enough before, why I prefer the Expoſition of Ticoniui, which Auguſtine ſeemeth to favour. And I find nothing here to the contrary that needeth a Reply.

Cap. 5. he would prove the Angels to be Archbiſhops; which if done, would not touch our Cauſe, who meddle not with Archbiſhops, but onelyonly prove, that the full Paſtoral or Epiſcopal Office or power of the Keys as over the Flock, ſhould be found in every particular Church that hath unum Altaere.

To prove Metropolitans (again) he tells us, how that in Provinces we find [Churches] mentioned in the Plural number, and in Cities onelyonly [a Church] ſingularly: not perceiving how hereby he overthrows his Cauſe, when he can never prove that in Scripture many particular, Churches are called [A Church] Dioceſane or Metropolitan, as united in one Biſhop, as our Diooeſane and Metropolitan Churches now are. Nay indeed, though the Society be ſpecified by the Government, yet the Name ſticketh in their teeth here in England, and they ſeldom uſe the Title of the Church of Canterbury and York] for the whole Province; and they uſe to ſay the Dioceſe of Lincoln, London, Wincheſter, Worceſter, Coventry and Litchfield, &c. rather than [the Church of Lincoln, London, Coventry and Litchfield &c.] leſt the Hearers would ſo hardly he ſeduced from the proper ſenſe of the word [Church] as not to underſtand them.

His Proofs of the Civil or Jewiſh diſtinction of Metropolitans, §. 4, 5, &c. let them mind that think it pertinent: But § 9. we have a great word, that [It may be proved by many examples, that after this Image the Apoſtles took care every where to diſpoſe of the Churches, and conſtituted a ſubordination and dependence of the leſſer on the more eminent Cities, in all their Plantations.] Anſw. This is to ſome purpoſe, if it be made good. The firſt Inſtance is Acts 14. 26. 16. 4. and 15. 2, 3, 22, 23, 30. Not a word elſe out of Scripture. And what's here? Why, Paul and Barnabas are ſent to Jeruſalem p. 93from Antioch, to the Apoſtles and Elders, about the Queſtion, and were brought on their way by the Church, and paſſed thorow Phenice and Samaria: Choſen men are ſent to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas, Judas and Silas, with Letters from the Apoſtles, Elders, and Brethren, even to the Brethren of the Gentiles in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia: And when they came to Antioch they delivered the Letters; and Paul and Timothy as they went thorow the Cities delivered them the Decrees to keep, that were ordained by the Apoſtles and Elders that were at Jeruſalem.] Doth not the Reader wonder where is the Proof? And wonder he may for me, unleſs this be it: The Apoſtles and Elders were at Jeruſalem when they wrote this Letter, and thence ſent it to Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia: Ergo, They eſtabliſhed the Biſhop of Jeruſalem to be the Governour and Metropolitan of Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia. The Apoſtle Paul went from Antioch to other Cities, and delivered them theſe Decrees: Ergo, Antioch is the governing Metropolis of thoſe Cities. I think the major Propoſitions are, [Every City from which Apoſtles ſend their Letters to other Cities, and every City from which an Apoſtle carrieth ſuch Letters or Decrees to other Cities, is by thoſe Apoſtles made the Governing Metropolis of thoſe other Cities.] What dull Heads are the Puritans, to queſtion ſuch a Propoſition as this! But it is not given to all Men to be wiſe: And we ignorant Perſons are left in doubt, Q. 1. Whether the Univerſal Headſhip or Papacy of the Biſhop of Jeruſalem be not of Apoſtolical Inſtitution? and that more than by one Apoſtle, even by all of them that were then at Jeruſalem? Q. 2. Whether the Apoſtles did not this as they did other parts of Church-ſettlement, by the Spirit of God? and ſo, whether it be not jure Divino? yea, by a more eminent Authority than the Scriptures, which were written by parts, by ſeveral ſingle Men, ſome Apoſtles, and ſome Evangeliſts? when this is ſaid to be done by all together. Q. 3. Whether Christ's Life, Death, Reſurrection, Aſcenſion, and ſending the Apoſtles thence into all the World, (and not into the Roman Empire onelyonly) do not incomparably more evidently make Jeruſalem the Univerſal Metropolis of the Earth, and ſo ſet it above Rome, which is but the Metropolis of one Empire? Q. 4. Whether then an Univerſal Head of the Church or Vicar of Chriſt be not jure Divino? and ſo a Jeruſalem Papacy be not eſſential to the true Church and Religion? Q. 5. Whether then all the Emperours, Biſhops, and Churches, that did ſet up Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, and Conſtantinople above Jeruſalem, were not Traytors againſt the Univerſal Sovereign of the Church, and guilty of Uſurpation and groſs Schiſm? Q. 6. To what parpoſe this Sovereignty was given to Jeruſalem, which was never poſſeſs'd and exerciſed? Q. 7. Whether Peter's being at Rome could alter this Church-Conſtitution? and one Apoſtle could undo what all together had done? Q. 8. Whether the Apoſtles carried this Metropolitical Prerogative with them from place to place, where-ever they came? And whether it did belong to the Men or the Place? And whether to the Place whence they firſt ſet out, or to every p. 94place where they came? or to the place where they dyed? Judge what is the proof of any of theſe. Q. 9. When they were ſcattered; which of their Seats was the Metropolitan to the reſt? or were they all equal? Q. 10. If the Power followed the Civil Power of the Metropolitane Rulers, whether Caeſar did not more in conſtituting the Church-Order, and giving power comparatively to the Metropolitanes, than Chriſt and his Apoſtles? Q. 11. Whether it was not in Caeſar's power to unmake all the Church Metropolitans and Biſhops at his pleaſure, by diſſolving the Priviledges and Charters of Cities? Q. 12. If it pleaſe any King, or be the Cuſtom of any Kingdom (as it is in many parts of America) that the Kingdom have no Cities or Metropolis, whether it muſt have any Churches, Biſhops, or Metropolitane? Q. 13. Whether when Paul wrote his Letters from Corinth to Rome he thereby made the Biſhop of Corinth the Governour of the Biſhop and Dioceſs of Rome? And whether little Cenchrea was over them alſo, becauſe Phoebe carried the Letter? And did his writing from Philippi to Corinth ſubject Corinth to the Biſhop of Philippi? And did his writing from Rome to Galatia, Epheſus, Philippi, the Coloſſians; and from Athens to the Theſſalonians, and from Laodicea and Rome to Timothy, and from Nicopolis to Titus, and John's writing from Patmos to the Aſian Metropolitanes produce the ſame effect? Q. 14. If Paul's carrying the Letters from Antioch to other Cities, proved Antioch the Governour of the reſt? whether when he returned from the other to Antioch again, he made not the other the Governours of Antioch? I am aſhamed to proſecute this Fiction any further. His following Citations from the Fathers I think unworthy of an Anſwer, till it be proved, 1. That theſe Fathers took the Metropolitane Order, as ſuch, to be of Apoſtolical Inſtitution, and not in complyance with the Roman Government, by meer humane, alterable policy. And, 2. That this Opinion roſe as early as he pretendeth. 3. And that theſe Ancients were not deceived, …t our Engliſh Biſhops rather (Bilſon, Jewel, &c.) who took Patriarchs and Metropolitanes, as ſuch, for Creatures of Humane Original.

While Ignatius his being Biſhop of [a Church in Syria] ſhall prove him the Biſhop of all Syria; and [the Church of God dwelling in Syria in Antiochia] ſhall be equivalent with [the Church in Antiochia governing all Syria] I ſhall not undertake to hinder ſuch men from proving any thing that they would have believed.

His Cap. 6. of the promiſcuous uſe of the Names of Biſhop and Presbyter, and Cap. 7. that prepareth the ſtating of the Controverſie, need no anſwer, but to ſay, that we deny not but where a ſingle Presbyter was, he had himſelf the power of Governing that Church; but where there were many, though all had the full Office ſeverally, they were bound to uſe it in Concord. And whether one amongſt them ſhall have a precedency or guidance of the reſt, we think (as Dr. Stillingfleet hath proved) to be a matter alterable by humane prudence, according to the various condition of the Churches: And if any take both ſuch Biſhops and Archbiſhops p. 95to be Jure Divine, with Dr. Hammond, it will be ſomewhat to his Cauſe, but nothing to ours.

Cap. 8. he openeth his conceit (which in time I ſhall ſhew doth yield us the whole Cauſe) that every place of Scripture which mentioneth Biſhops or Presbyters, meaneth Dioceſan ſupereminent Biſhops only. And firſt he proveth it of the Elders Biſhops of Epheſus, Acts 20. becauſe the whole flock is meant of all Aſia: Fully proved, becauſe Irenaeus ſaid (as he thought) that the Biſhops were convocate from Epheſus and the neareſt Cities. But, 1. Irenaeus ſaith not [Biſhops] only, but Biſhops and Presbyters, conjoining them as two ſorts, and not [Biſhops or Presbyters] as the Doctor doth. 2. The neareſt Cities, and all Aſia, we take not for words of the ſame importance. 3. We take not your bare word for the validity of the Conſequence, that becauſe the Biſhops of ſeveral Cities were there, therefore it is all Aſia that is ſingularly called foreign, the whole Flock, and not each Biſhops Flock reſpectively; q. d. Each of you look to your ſeveral Flock. 4. We think if you calculate the time, Acts 20 and 21. and conſider Paul's haſte Acts 20. 16. that few impartial men will believe that Paul's Meſſengers (that were wont to go on foot) did ſo quickly go all over Aſia, and ſo quickly get together all the Biſhops of Aſia to Miletum; unleſs they all reſided at Epheſus, as our Engliſh Biſhops do at London, and Governed their unknown people by a Lay-Chancellour. 5. And Irenaeus, ibid. p. 312. ſaith [Et omnia hujuſmodi per ſolum Lucam cognovimus, we know all ſuch things by Luke alone, pretending no other Tradition. And if it be in Luke it is yet to be thence proved. 6. But he pleadeth our Cauſe too ſtrongly, by ſuppoſing that each City then had a Biſhop without any ſubject half Presbyter, and ſo that no ſuch Office was yet made.

Cap. 9. Of Timothy's Epiſcopacy concerneth not our Cauſe. Though I hope that neither he nor his Church were ſo bad as the Angel or Church in Rev. 2. is deſcribed. And it's eaſier to anſwer the ſtrength of Dr. Hammond, than for him to anſwer the Evidence brought by Prin in his Vnbiſhoping Timothy and Titus, to ſhew the itinerant life and Miniſtry of Timothy, contrary to the life of a fixed Biſhop. And if non-reſidency have ſuch Patrons, and Timothy have taught men to leave their Churches year after year, and play the Paſtor many hundred Miles diſtant, it will make us dream that non-reſidence is a duty. And if all theſe years Timothy's Metropolitan Church at Epheſus had no ordained Presbyter (but Paſſengers that fell in) I blame them not, or wonder not at leaſt, that they loſt their firſt love; for it's like they ſeldom had any Church Aſſemblies to Communicate and Worſhip God together.

Cap. 10. Cometh to the caſe of Philippi, Phil. 1. 1, 2. And, 1. §. 3. he ſaith, It is manifeſt that Epaphroditus Biſhop of Philippi was at Rome with Paul when he wrote this Epiſtle (and he ſuppoſeth that there were yet no Presbyters, but Biſhops.) And ſo when Paul wrote to all the Saints which are at Philippi, with the Biſhops and Deacons,] he meant [to thoſe that are not at p. 96Philippi where there was no Biſhop, but in other Cities of Macedonia that had every one a Prelate without ever a Presbyter under him.] With ſome this expounding may go for modeſt, if not true.

Two probable Arguments I object againſt his improbable Expoſitions of this Text and that Acts 20. before mentioned: 1. Where did he ever read that all the Province of Macedonia was called Philippi; and the Saints ſaid to dwell at Philippi that dwelt all over Macedonia? 2. Where did he ever read in Scripture many Epiſcopal Churches under one Metropolitan, called One Church in the ſingular Number, as in Acts 20. 28. or One Flock either? 3. Will any knowing man deny that he contradicteth not only Hierom and Theodoret, but the common Expoſition of the Fathers, by this his odd Opinion? And is it not groſs partiality for the ſame man that can ſo eaſily caſt off the judgment of almoſt all the Ancients at once, to lay ſo much of the whole ſtreſs of his Dioceſan and Metropolitan Cauſe upon the Fathers aſſertions, yea doubtful reports; and to take it for ſo immodeſt a thing in others, to deny belief to them in ſuch uncertain matters?

But he ſetteth Epiphanius his words againſt Aerius againſt them all▪ Even that Epiphanius who ordained in the Biſhop of Jeruſalem's Dioceſs to his diſpleaſure, and that combined with that Theophilus Alexand. (of whom Socrates writeth ſuch horrid and unchriſtian practices) to root out Chryſoſtom, and raiſe a flame in the Church of Conſtantinople; who liker a mad man than a ſober Biſhop, came from Cyprus not only into the City, but the Church where Chryſoſtom uſed to officiate, to inflame his people, and declame againſt, and cenſure their Biſhop, to whom he was an inferiour; and that parted with him in a wrathful Prognoſtick, and dyed by the way home: And yet even this one man ſaith nothing to his advantage, but that the Apoſtles placed Biſhops only with Deacons in ſome Churches that had not fit men to make Presbyters of: which we not only grant, but doubt whether ever they made any but Biſhops, (though in great Cities there were many of them.)

And §. 8, 9, 10. when it ſeemed to ſerve his turn, he yet further gratifieth us, by granting, yea maintaining that one Congregation had not two Biſhops, yet [nothing hindreth but that in the ſame City there might ſometimes be two diſtinct Aſſemblies, converted by two Apoſtles, perhaps of diſtinct dialects and rites, and theſe governed by diſtinct Biſhops, with a divided or diſtinct Clergie,] which is almoſt as much as we deſire. If any more be neceſſary he granteth it us, §. 11. where having feigned and not proved that the people of all the Province of Macedonia were ſaid by Paul to be at Philippi; he confeſſeth that then every City had a Biſhop, and none of thoſe that we now call Presbyters. And it is more this Baſtard ſort of Presbyters Office that we deny than the Biſhops: And granting this he grants us all; even that then there was no ſuch half Officers, nor Biſhops that had the rule of any Presbyters: which he further proveth, §. 19, 20, 21. And by the way, §. 16, 17. he giveth us two more Obſervations, 1. That the foreign p. 97gave precedency to ſome Churches. Where I would learn whether the Holy Ghoſt ſtill obſerved the order in converting men, to begin at the higheſt Metropolis, and deſcend by order to the loweſt, and ſo to the Villages? Or whether our Doctor do not here contradict what he ſaid before, of the Apoſtles every where diſpoſing of the Churches according to the Civil Metropolitical Order? I doubt his memory here failed him.

2. Philippi and Theſſalonica being both in Macedonia, and theſe Epiſtles being each written to all the Province, we hence learn that the Epiſtle to the Theſſalonians, and that to the Philippians, were written to the ſame men. Whether each Epiſtle, Rev. 2. & 3. to the ſeven Churches of Aſia was written to all Aſia, and ſo all the faults charged on all that are charged on any one, I leave to your arbitrary belief. For none of theſe are proved, whatever proof is boaſted of.

Cap. 11. he further gratifieth us in expounding 1 Tim. 3. in the ſame manner, One Biſhop with Deacons then ſerving for a whole Dioceſs, that is for one Aſſembly, not having ſuch a thing as a half Presbyter ſubject to any Biſhop.

Cap. 12. he is as liberal in expounding Tit. 1. By Elders in every City, is meant a ſingle Biſhop that had no half Presbyter under him, and whoſe Dioceſs had but one Aſſembly. We are not ſo unreaſonable as to quarrel with this liberality.

Cap. 13. And about Heb. 13. we are as much gratified in the Expoſition of the word [foreign] of which more afterwards. And Cap. 14, and 15. he ſaith the ſame of foreign and foreign, Paſtors and Teachers, that they both are meant of none but Biſhops. And that Presbyters now adays are permitted and tyed to teach the people, and inſtruct them from the Scriptures, this apparently aroſe hence, that Biſhops in ordaining Presbyters gave them that power, but not to be exerciſed till licenſed by the Biſhops Letters.] Of this deteſtable Opinion (worſe than the Italians in the Council of Trent, that would have derived the Epiſcopal Power from the Pope) I have ſaid ſomewhat before, and intend more in due place. The Biſhops do only miniſterially give them poſſeſſion: Chriſt is the only Inſtituter of the Office by himſelf (and his Spirit in his Apoſtles.) Can the Biſhops any more chuſe to deliver this poſſeſſion by Ordination, than to preach the Goſpel? Could they have made Presbyters that had no power to teach the people? Is the Biſhops liberality the original of the Office? How much then is Chriſt beholden to Biſhops, that when a thouſand Pariſhes are in ſome one of their Dioceſſes, they will give leave to any Presbyter to teach any of the people? and that when eighteen hundred of us were ſilenced in one day (Aug. 24. 1662.) that all the reſt were not ſerved ſo too?

Cap. 16. he exerciſeth the ſame naked affirming Authority of the words [Miniſters of the word] Luke 1. 2. and Stewards] all are but Biſhops. And he asketh whether ever man heard of more Stewards than one in one houſe? or of ſeveral bearers of one Key? And he foreſaw that we would tell him that Gods Catholick Church is one Houſe of God, and that at leaſt all the p. 98Apoſtles were Stewards and Key-Bearers in that one Church; and that by his Doctrine none but one of them ſhould be Steward of Gods Myſteries, or have the Keys: And therefore he ſaith, that [Though the Apoſtles are called Stewards of the Myſteries of God, 1 Cor. 4. 1. that is to be reckoned as pertaining to the many divided Families, that is the many particular Churches, diſtinct parts of the Univerſal Church, which the Apoſt…s divided among themſelves. Anſw. Unleſs his etiam here be a ſelf-contradicting cheat, it will hence follow, 1. That the Apoſtles are not Stewards of Gods Myſteries in gathering Churches, but only to the Churches gathered. 2. That in Baptizing and giving the Holy Ghoſt, to ſuch as yet entered not into a Particular Church, they ex…erciſed not any of their ſaid Stewardſhip or Power. 3. That thay have no Power of the Keyes at all, over any that are not Members of a Particular Church, (ſuch as the Eunuch, Act. 8. And many Merchants, Embaſſadors, Travellers, and many thouſands that want Paſtors or opportunity, or hearts, yea and all Chriſtians in the firſt Inſtant as meerly Baptized Perſons ſeeing Baptiſme entereth them only into the Univerſal Church, and not into any particular as ſuch) 4. And that till the Apoſtles gathered particular Churches, and diſtributed them, they had no Stewardſhip, nor uſe (at leaſt) of the Keyes. And what if it can never be provedthat ever the Apoſtles diſtributed the univerſal Church into Apoſtolical Provinces, but only pro re nata diſtributed themſelves in the World, were they never Stewards then nor Key-bearers? Verily if I believed ſuch a diſtribution of the World into twelve or more Provinces by them, I ſhould queſtion the power that altered that Conſtitution, and ſet us up but four or five Patriarches. And were the ſame Apoſtles no Stewards or Key-bearers out of their (feigned) ſeveral Provinces? If we muſt be cilenced unleſs we ſubſcribe to the Dictates of ſuch ſelf conceited Confident men, who ſhall ever Preach that is not born under the ſame Planet with them? Cap. 17. he proceedeth ſtill to maintain our Cauſe, that even in Juſtin Martyrs writings, and others of that Age, by the foreign are meant the Biſhops of the ſeveral Churches who had not one Presbyter under them, but Deacons only, and therefore had but ſingle Congregations; but did themſelves alone with the Deacon perform all the publick Offices in the Church. And that no equal Presbyter was placed with them, offendeth us no more than that our Pariſh Miniſters now are preſented and inſtituted alone, yea and have power to take Curates under them as their helpers.

Cap. 18. He proveth truly that the Names Sacerdos and Sacerdotium are uſually by old Writers ſpoken of ſole Biſhops and Epiſcopacy. By which we are the more confirmed in our Opinion, that he that is not Epiſcopus gregis a Biſhop over the Flock, is not Sacerdos, true Paſtor, but hath only a limb of the Miniſterial Office, being a thing of preſumptuous Prelates inſtitution.

Cap. 19. He ſurther ſtrengtheneth us by maintaining that the word Presbyter, in the places of the New Teſtament cited by him, doth mean only p. 99a Biſhop, that is a Paſtor of one only Congregation, that had no Presbyter under him, but Deacons: and that no mention is made by the Apoſtles of other Presbyters, § 6. And he gratifieth us with Epiphanius his Reaſons, § 4. [becauſe as yet there was not a multitude of Believers:] And that the Elders that Paul ſpeaketh to Timothy of ordaining and rebuking, and thoſe that were worthy of double honour, were only Biſhops that had no ſubject Presbyters. Whether they were ſet over the Churches as Moſes was over Iſrael, with a deſign that they ſhould make ſubordinate Officers under them, I ſhall enquire in due place.

Cap. 20. He goeth over moſt of the other Texts in the New Teſtament that mention Elders, ſhewing that they mean ſuch Biſhops; and that even at Hieruſalem, the Elders Acts 15. were not our new half Prieſts, but the Biſhops of all the Churches of Judaea; and ſo of others here again repeated by him. But it ſticketh with me, that theſe Biſhops having no ſubject Presbyters, are found ſo oft in the Metropolitane City, and ſo oft in travel, and ſo oft many hundred Miles from home, that I doubt it was but a few Churches in the world that kept the Lords day, and aſſembled for publick Worſhip, or had any Sacraments frequently, but lived as the Atheiſts and impious contemners of Church-Communion now do; or elſe that with the Fanaticks we muſt hold that Lay-men or Deacons did play the Prieſts in all Church Offices.

Cap. 21. He vindicateth that one remaining Text, Jam. 5. 14. which mentioneth Presbyters viſiting the ſick, as meant only of Biſhops, and not of mungrel Prieſts: And ſo being ſecured that theſe were never found in the Scripture times, and conſequently no Biſhop (except Archbiſhops) that had more worſhipping Churches than one, we muſt look who preſumed to inſtitute another Office. And here, § 3. he perſwadeth us to be ſo civil to Ignatius, as thankfully to acknowledge him the firſt Patron of our Office-dignity; intimating that there is no earlier proof of the invention of this mungrel Office, than the Epiſtles of Ignatius.

Cap. 22. He tells us that the word Presbyter is alſo taken for Biſhops by Polycarp, Papias, Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Clemens Alexand. ſo that our cauſe will be carried beyond Scripture times. But again finding ſo many Biſhops with Polycarp, I doubt he maketh Biſhops too unwearied Travellers, and too great non-Reſidents, and Gods Publick Worſhip too often interrupted by their abſence.

Cap. 23, 24, 25, 26. He ſpeaketh of Deacons, the word and Office, which we have now no buſineſs with, but to note that cap. 26. § 8. he is again at Epiphanius allowing a ſingle Biſhop without Presbyters, but not without Deacons, becauſe he cannot be a Biſhop without Deacons, (which I believe not, nor do our Prelates) but without ſubject Presbyters he may (better than with them.) And § 10. he excellently argueth from the Epiſtle to Timothy, that ſeeing Paul inſtructeth him in all things belonging to the Church of God, 1 Tim. 3. 15. and yet never mentioneth theſe Medioxumos Presbyteros, mungrel or middle Prieſts, it is plain that the reaſon is p. 100becauſe none ſuch were inſtituted when the Apoſtle wrote: To which I add, nor afterward by the Apoſtles, as far as can be proved, and therefore never ſhould have been.

Cap. 27. He ſpeaketh of the foreign and foreign Tit. 1. and 2. and 1 Tim. 5. ſhewing that theſe Women were in Orders: Of which I have no mind to contend, ſo that by the Name it be not inferred that they are ſhe-Biſhops; and that they argue not as a Preacher did ſince we were ſilenced (I can name the Man and place) from St. John's Epiſtle [to the Elect Lady] to prove that there were Lord-Biſhops in the Apoſtles daies, viz. an Elect Lady ſuppoſeth an Elect Lord: But there are no Elect Lords, but Elect Lord-Biſhops: Ergo—

We have not yet ſeen all Dr. Hammond's confutation of our Dioceſan Prelacie. In his fifth Diſſertation we have more. Cap. 1. He ſpeaketh of Clemens Rom. and whereas we think that the confuſion among Hiſtorians, came partly from the little notice that came down from thoſe times of ſuch particulars, and partly from the identity of the Office of Linus, Cletus, and Clemens; being all Biſhops at once of a great Church (the Half-Presbyters being not yet ordained) he gratifyeth us by proving that not only at Rome, but alſo in Antioch, Epheſus, Corinth, and Jeruſalem, there were more Churches than one, with their ſeveral Biſhops: Even one of the Jews and one of the Gentiles (how the local Dioceſe were then divided is hard to tell, and where it was that one Apoſtle had Power of the Keys, and where not) I ſhall improve this Conceſſion in due place.

Cap. 2. Of Clements Epiſtle he firſt takes notice of the Inſcription [to the Church of God, dwelling (or ſojourning) at Corinth] The ſame Phraſe as Philip. …. 1, 2. And by this Church he proveth (by confident affirming) that all the Churches of Achaia are meant. And that the ſame is to be ſaid of Paul's Epiſtle to the Corinthians, he unreſiſtibly proveth, by ſaying that Quiſquis eas vel leviter deguſtaverit (tuo ſcilicet guſtu) hoc omnino pronunciandum eſſe nobiſcum ſtatuet. Nec igitur de hac Clementis ambigi poterit.] And ſo all that Controverſie is ended. But though (without Scripture proof) imagination might handſomely feign, that the many Churches of Achaia are called ſingularly [the Church of Corinth,] as one, becauſe of the Unity of the Metropolitane; yet, 1. I would have heard ſomewhat like reaſon for, and ſome inſtances of the uſe of ſuch a ſpeech, as this [foreign] The Church of God dwelling (or ſojourning) at Rome, to the Church of God dwelling (or ſojourning) at Corinth. And why and where, and by what good writers; all Achaia is called Corinth, or all Macedonia, Philippi (or all the Cities about it) indeed as the County of Worceſter, the County of York, of Warwick, &c. are uſual Titles, ſo may the Church of York, Worceſter, Warwick, be in the Dioceſans ſenſe. But whoever ſaid of all the County or Dioceſs [To the County, Dioceſs, dwelling at York, Worceſter, Warwick?] As if all the Countrey and Towns belonging to that Circuit were called Warwick. &c.

p. 1012. Doth not his own proof evidently confute him. 2 Cor. 1. 1. To the Church of God which is at Corinth, with all the Saints which are in all Achaia. Are the laſt words Tautological? doth [with] ſignifie no addition at all. If by [the Church which is at Corinth] be meant all the Churches and Chriſtians in Achaia, what ſenſe is there in the addition of [with all the Saints which are in Achaia?] O what kind of proof will ſatisfie ſome Learned Men!

3. Was it all the Churches of Achaia that the inceſtuous perſon. 1 Cor. 5. dwelt with? and that are chidden for ſuffering him in their Communion? and that are directed when they meet together to caſt him out, and not to eat with him?

4. Would it not be Calumny according to all rational Laws, to accuſe all the Churches of Achaia, of all thoſe Crimes which the Church at Corinth is accuſed of, without a better proof than this?

5. Was it all the Churches of Achaia, which 1 Cor. 14. are ſaid to meet all in one place, and to have ſo many Prophets and Interpreters in that one Aſſembly? I am not at leiſure to ſay more of this.

But who denieth that the ſame Epiſtle which was directed firſt to the Corinthians, was ſecondarily directed to the reſt of Achia, and to be Communicated to them. And yet not the Churches of Achaia be all ſaid to be or dwell at Corinth.

When 2 Cor. 11. 10. Paul ſpeaketh of [the Regions of Achaia (foreign) he ſaith that ſheweth that the matter belonged [to the whole Church of Achaia.] But how long have they all been challenged to name one Text of Scripture, that ſpeaketh ſingularly of the Church of a Province or Countrey, conſiſting of many particular Churches: Yet addeth he [In re manifeſta non pluribus opus eſt.]

Cap. 3. He only mentioneth the occaſion of Clements Epiſtle, where without any Proof he extendeth the Sedition then raiſed by them, to the diſturbance of the Civil Government and Peace: And if he had proved as he endeavoureth that by foreign is meant the Civil Rulers (which is utterly uncertain) yet the commendation of their Obedience, formerly to the Civil Power, as part of the Character of their orderlineſs and peaceableneſs, doth not prove that Rebellion againſt them was part of their following diſorder.

Cap. 4. Is to tell us, 1. That Clemens puts Obedience to Rulers, and due honouring of Presbyters as a Law of God (which is not to be doubted of.) 2. That Biſhops were ſent by the Apoſtles, as the Apoſtles by Chriſt, but were joyned only with Deacons to attend them. Mark here Reader, that he doth not only acknowledge that de facto the Order of Mungrel or Half-Prieſts was not yet Exiſtent, but alſo that none ſuch were ſent by the Apoſtles, and ſo not Inſtituted, and that Clemens himſelf taketh notice of no ſuch even in his times. But how the Dr. will prove that no great Churches (and particularly this of Corinth) had but one Biſhop, you ſhall ſee with little ſatisfaction.) 3. He noteth that theſe Biſhops thus ſent were conſtituted every where, Eccleſias nondum natas, ſed ad partum (bonis Dei auſp…cus) feſtinantes, p. 102brachiis at que ulnis ſuis ſuſceptum & adminiſtratum; to receive in their Arms and Arms the Churches not yet born, but (by Gods Bleſſing) haſtning to the Birth] whereas of his own Head he had before ſaid that the Biſhops were ſent by the Apoſtles (when Clement ſaith no ſuch thing) but only that they were Conſtituted (sending being the word uſed of Itenerant Preachers gathering and viſiting Churches, and Conſtituting with Ordaining the uſual word of Biſhops and Presbyters, who as ſuch are fixed to particular Churches;) ſo now he more boldly forgeteth that Biſhops were (yea every where) to receive Churches that were yet no Churches: Where he contradicteth both Scripture and common uſe of the word Biſhop, and abuſeth Clement. 1. Let any Man that can ſhew us thatin the New Teſtament the word Biſhop is ever uſed of any Paſtor that was not related to a Church, and as ſignifying that Relation, and that Biſhop and Flock are yet as much Relatives as King and Kingdom. 2 Let him ſhew that can, that the word was uſed otherwiſe by Chriſtians, for many a hundred years after Chriſt. Though I grant that Miniſters in general were (and may be) ordained ſine titulo, to Preach and gather Churches, and help others, yet never Biſhops, the word ſignifying an Over-ſeer of the Flock or Church to which he is related. 3. If it were certain that the futurity of believing mentioned by Clemens had relation to the Conſtitution of Biſhops, and not to the Apoſtles Preaching only, yet Clemens ſaith not that there were yet no Believers or no Churches where they were conſtituted Biſhops: Where there were but a few Believers, the Apoſtles placed Biſhops and Deacons over thoſe few, who ſhould receive others into the ſame Society (till it was full and no further) who ſhould after believe. It is an abuſe of Clemens to ſay, it was [to Churches yet not born] when he hath no ſuch word! As if it could not be for future Believers, unleſs at preſent there were no Believers. And it is an abuſe of him to ſeign him to aſſert that the Apoſtles did every where as ſoon as they had once Converted one Man, preſently make that new Baptized Novice a Biſhop before they Converted any more, ſaving perhaps one or two to be his Deacons: Or that they uſed to make Deacons (or Biſhops either) to Churches future, that were yet no Churches: When as the Scripture telleth the contrary moſt expreſly, that the Church at Jeruſalem, was before the Deacons, Act. 7. That they ordained Elders in every Church, Act. 14. 23. and not in no Church, as he implyeth: And Tit. 1. 5. every City is equivalent to every Church, for it was not in every Infidel City that had no Chriſtians: Which beyond all modeſt contradiction is proved by the Rules given to Timothy and Titus for the Ordination of Biſhops and Deacons: Who were to be approved choſen perſons, that had ruled their own Houſes well, not Novices, apt to teach, well reported of thoſe without (which ſuppoſeth ſome to be within) Tim. 3. 14, 15. Theſe things I write unto thee, that thou mayeſt know how to behave thy ſelf in the Houſe of God, which is the Church of the Living God, a Pillar and Baſis of the truth.] The firſt that were converted did not always prove the fitteſt to be Biſhops; perhaps they might be Women or weakly gui…ted: To feign that the Apoſtles did that every where, which none p. 103can prove that ever they did once (to make a Biſhop and Deacons of the two or three firſt Novice-converts before there were any more Converted, and to make Biſhops and Deacons before there were any Chriſtians to conſtitute Churches, meerly for future Churches,) this is not Clemens act, whoever elſe will own it.

4. Laſtly he noteth here that this was done by the Revelation of the Spirit, whereby they examined and tryed who was worthy of that Dignity. And, 1. What uſe for examination who was worthy, where there was no other to ſtand in Competition, and where the firſt Convert ſtill was taken? Election is è multis. And if he be compelled to grant that there were more Chriſtians over whom the Biſhop was ſet, it is a Contradiction to ſay that a Biſhop and his Flock, though ſmall, is no Church. 2. It is hard to believe that the multitude of ignorant Lads, and wicked Men that are now ſet over Churches, are Conſtituted by this Apoſtolical choice and Tryal, by the Holy Ghoſt.

Cap. 5. §. 5. He now acknowledgeth that where many were at firſt Converted, not always the firſt but the fitteſt was choſen Biſhop. And how prove you that he and his Flock were no Church? The ſame he maintaineth, §. 11. And after from the choice uſually made by ſuffrages and other reaſons, well confuteth the former conceit, when he took it to be Blondels; but ſure he could not believe that they were Eccleſiae nondum nat…, or future Believers that choſe Biſhops by Suffrages? But having ſo fully in this Chapter confuted his former, as Blondel's opinion, I doubt not but Blondel is in this as eaſily reconciled to him as he to himſelf, and meant no more, but, 1. That the Apoſtles uſed (not to make Biſhops of the firſt Converts ſimply, but) to chooſe them out of the ancient, grown, and proved Chriſtians. 2. And that being ſo choſen (not he that was firſt Baptized, but) he that was firſt ordained, had the preſidence in the Con…eſſus of their Presbyters: Which the Dr. might eaſily have ſeen, and ſpared his inſulting upon the contrary ſuppoſition.

But let it here again be noted, that §. 9. he expreſly and confidently aſſerteth all that I now deſire, viz. That Clemens doth ſpeak of that time of the Churches beginning, in which there were not yet many Believers, and therefore without doubt, neither Presbyters inſtituted. If he means [no Subject Presbyters] or if he means [not many in a Church but one Biſhop] I deſire no more: For then no Biſhop had more Church Aſſemblies than one, nor any half▪Presbyters were ordained by the Apoſtles. For Clemens doth not tell us what the Apoſtles did in the beginning of their Preaching only, but giveth us this as an account of all their courſe, in ſettling Offices in the Churches where they came.

Cap. 6. He confeſſeth that Clemens mentioneth but two Orders, Biſhops and Deacons, (and we would have no more) and §. 4. is over angry with Blundel for gathering hence, that he did not do as thoſe that from the Jewiſh Elders, or Prieſts, or the 70 gather another order, what is there in this Collection that deſerveth the ſharp words of that §.

p. 104Cap. 7. Whether Clemens well cited Iſai. 60. 17. we need not debate. But if yet any think that the Dr. hath not fully granted us our Cauſe, let him take theſe additions: §. 7. He well gathereth from Clemens that this form of Government, founded in Biſhops and Deacons (in each Church) being ſetled by Men entruſted by Chriſt, is no leſs to be aſcribed to Gods Command than if Chriſt himſelf had conſtituted Biſhops and Deacons in every City. (Let who dare then approve of the alteration by the Introduction of another Order of Prieſts.) And §. 8. He noteth alſo out of Clemens that the foreſight of the contention that would be about Epiſcopacy cauſed this eſtabliſhment of Biſhops and Deacons: No doubt God foreknew both that the popular ſort would oppoſe Government, and that the Monarchical Prelates would depoſe all the Biſhops of the ſame Church ſave themſelves, and the Arch-Prelates would depoſe all the Biſhops of particular Churches, and ſet up half Prieſts in their ſtead. And he doth well not to paſs the following words in Clemens (though hard, yet plainly ſubverting the Doctors opinion) that from this ſame foreſight the Apoſtles conſtituted the foreſaid Biſhops and Deacons (in every Church) foreign, &c. ac deſcriptas deinceps miniſtrorum officiorum que vices reliquerunt, ut in defunctorum locum alii viri probati ſuccedere, & illorum munia exequi poſſent, (as Pat. Junius tranſlateth it.) The word [foreign] can allow no ſuch doubt as ſhall make this much of the ſenſe to be queſtionable, 1. That upon the foreſight of the Contentions about Epiſcopacy the Apoſtles made (by the Spirit) an eſtabliſhed Deſcription of the Orders and Offices which ſhould be in the Church, not only in their times, but afterwards. 2. And that the approved men that ſhould hereafter be ordained, ſhould ſucceed in thoſe ſame Orders which the Apoſtles had eſtabliſhed and deſcribed, even to the ſame Work or Office, (foreign) 3. That the Apoſtles thus ſetled or deſcribed no mungrel or half Prieſts, but only Biſhops and Deacons, nor any Churches that had not each a Biſhop and Deacon. 4. Therefore no ſuch half Prieſts ſhould be brought in, but only ſuch as the Apoſtles inſtituted or deſcribed.

I can ſcarce ſpeak my thoughts plainlier, than by the Doctors next words, § 9. [It is evident that by the immediate impulſe of the Spirit of God Biſhops were conſtituted (Deacons only joyned to them) in every Church, and ſo at Corinth, and the reſt of the Cities of Achaia: And that by the command of the ſame Divine Propheſie or Revelation, ſucceſſors were aſſigned to them after their departure; (not a new order invented) Chriſt thus conſulting and providing for the Churches peace, &c.] And §. 14. he well granteth, 1. That the form of Church Government was no where changed by the Apoſtles (and ſo no middle order inſtituted by them.) 2. That through all their Age, and when they were conſummate in the middle, under their Diſciples, the Government of every Church was in the power of the Biſhops and Deacons in common.

But whereas §. 13, &c. he layeth this as the ground of his Cauſe, 1. That it was not the Church at Corinth alone, but of all Achaia that Clemens writeth to under this name. 2. And that there were not many Biſhops in one Church, p. 105but one to each of theſe particular Churches: I deſire the Reader, 1. To try impartially whether in all the Drs. Book there be one word of cogent Evidence to prove what he ſaith, yea or to make it credible or likely. 2. To conſider theſe Reaſons following for the contrary.

1. As is ſaid, whether Scripture cuſtom of ſpeech will allow us to call all the Churches of a Region [A Church] in the ſingular Number: Shew one Text for it if you can.

2. Whether any ancient Eccleſiaſtical uſe of ſpeech will allow us to ſay that the Churches of Achaia dwell at Corinth (as Clemens ſpeaketh, p. 1.)

3. Whether I have not proved from 1 Cor. 14. &c. that the Church of Corinth had more Miniſters, or Clergy men, or Paſtors in it than one in Paul's time? And therefore was not without ſo ſoon after.

4. Whether it be credible that when it was but one or two Perſons (p. 62.) by whom or for whoſe cauſe the Pre…byters were ejected; that it is like either this one or two were members of more particular Churches in Achaia than one or two? Or that all the Churches of Achaia would ſo far own one or two mutineers in a particular Church, as to caſt out many of their Miniſters for their ſakes?

5. Yea when Clemens whole ſcope intimateth that this one or two did this becauſe they aſpired after Power or Preeminence themſelves: Could they expect themſelves to be made the Rulers of more than one or two Churches?

6. And what was the cauſe of this one or two like to touch the Biſhops of the other Churches? And what Cogniſance was all Achaia like to have of the cauſe of one or two diſtant perſons, ſo as for them to riſe up againſt their own Biſhops.

7. If it was not all nor many Paſtors that were thus turned out (as Clemens words import) why ſhould all Achaia be called ſeditious, and blamed for it?

8. Doth not the common Law of Charity and Juſtice forbid us to extend thoſe words of reproof to a whole Province, which cannot be proved to extend farther than to a ſingle Church, and principally toucht but one or two.

9. I have before proved that Paul by [the Saints at Corinth] meaneth but one Church: Therefore it's like that Clemens doth ſo too.

10. The Biſhops and Deacons that Clemens ſpeaketh of, were ſet up foreign, Cum conſenſu totius Eccleſiae, or as the Dr. will needs have it [applaudente aut congratulante tota Eccleſia] indeed [with the good liking, Pleaſure, or Approbation of the whole Church.] And ſhall we be perſwaded that all the Cities and Countrey of Achaia were that whole Church, which approved, or conſented to theſe particular Paſtors that were put out? Or that had Cogniſance of them or acquaintance with them?

11. He expreſly ſaith, pag. 62. foreign, That the Church of Corinth for the ſake of one or two, moved Sedition againſt the Presbyters.] And why doth he never ſay [it was the Church of Achaia.]

12. p. 63. He ſuppoſeth the Perſon Emulating to be [a Believer of power in explaining Doctrine, wiſe in judging of Speeches, &c. And would have the concern'd Perſon ſay (p. 69.) If the Sedition be for me, and the Contention and Schiſms, I will remove, I will be gone wither you will, and will do what the People pre-determine of▪ (or command,) only let the Flock of Chriſt with the Presbyters ſet over them live in peace.] And is it like that the Flock that this Perſon muſt ſay ſo to, was all Achaia?

13. And p. 73. He requireth [thoſe that begun the Sedition, to be obediently Subject p. 106to the Presbyters (and not to their Biſhop onelyonly.) And is it like to be the Biſhops of other Churches through all Achaia, that this one or two is required to Obey and be in Subjection to.

I have given my Reaſons, to prove that theſe Presbyters were in the One Church of Corinth: Compare his (if you can find them) to the contrary, and Judge Impartially as you ſee cauſe.

Cap. 8. Hath nothing that concerneth us, but the recitall of his grand▪ Conceſſion, leſt we ſhould think that in Clemens days, the great Biſhop of Corinth, or any in Achaia, had any more Church-aſſemblies than one to whom he could do all the Paſtoral Offices himſelf, he thus concludeth, §. 9. [Indeed mention is found only of Biſhops (with Deacons) conſtituted in each City, ſometimes under the Title of Biſhops, ſometimes of Presbyters; there being no token or foot-ſtep at all appearing of ſuch as we now call Presbyters, &c.] To which I wholly agree; though not that there was but one Presbyter in Corinth.

Cap. 9. He is offended much with Blondel, for reproaching Hermas, and yet uſing his Teſtimony: As if a Hereticks, or an Infidels Teſtimony might not be uſed in point of Hiſtory: And, §. 14. he again cometh to his ſuppoſition of Biſhops without Subject Presbyters, as if it ſerved his turn more than ours.

Cap. 10. About Pius words, hath nothing that I find the cauſe concerned in.

Cap. 11. Is of little moment to us, both parties have little that is cogent, but velitations about dubious words.

Cap. 12. Is but about the ſenſe of the word applyed to Ireneu… ▪ which Dr. H. taketh here and by many after to mean a Biſhop, and wonders that Blondel pleadeth for a parity of order from a common Name. But it is not ſo much without reaſon as he maketh it: For if Biſhops and Presbyters were in the firſt times called by one Name; and the higheſt Perſon in the Church then was ordinarily known by the name Presbyter, and the appropriating of [Biſhop] to one ſort▪ and Presbyter to another, came afterwards in by ſuch inſenſible degrees, that no man can tell when it was, it ſounds very probable, that it was the true Epiſcopal Power, or the ſame Office and Order, that was firſt commonly poſſeſſed by them to whom the name was Common.

And ſo much of Dr. Hammond's Diſſertations, wherein I muſt deſire the Reader to note, 1. That I meddle not with other mens Cauſes, nor particularly with the queſtion: Whether one man in each Church, had of old, a guiding ſuperiority over the reſt of the Presbyters? Nor yet, whether the Apoſtles had ſuch ſucceſſors in the General care of many Churches, (ſuch as Viſiters, or Arch-Biſhops) but only, 1. Whether every Presbyter were not Eſſentially a Biſhop, or Governour of the Flock, having the power of Keys, as they call it, in foro interiore & exteriore, both for reſolving Conſciences and for Church-order. 2. Whether every particular Church, which ordinarily communicated together in the Lords Supper, and had unum Altare, had not one or more ſuch Biſhops. 3. Whether it was not a ſinful corrupting change▪ to bring in another Species of Presbyters; and ſo to depoſe all the particular Churches and Biſhops, and ſet up a Dio…eſane Biſhop▪ in…is ordinis, with half Churches and half-Prieſts, under him in their ſtead. 2. And note, That as it concerned me not to ſpeak to all that the Doctor hath ſaid, ſo I have carefully choſen out all that I thought pertinent and of a ſeeming weight, as to the cauſe which I mannage, and have paſt by nothing in the whole p. 107Book, which I thought an underſtanding Reader needeth an anſwer to.

There is yet the ſame Authors Vindication of his Diſſertations to be conſidered: But I find nothing new in them to be anſwered by me, nor that I am concerned for the Cauſe in hand any further than to give you theſe few Obſervations.

1. That again, p. 5. he ſaith, [That by obſerving the paucity of Believers in many Cities in the firſt Plantations, which made it unneceſſary that there ſhould by the Apoſtles be ordained any more than a Biſhop and Deacon (one, or more) in each City, and that this was accordingly done by them at the firſt, is approved by the moſt undenyable ancient Records.

2. That p. 7. he again well averreth that the Jewiſh and Gentile Congregations occaſioned ſeveral Churches and Biſhops in the ſame Cities. And p. 14. 15. That Timothy was placed by Paul, Biſhop of the Gentiles at Epheſus, and S. John, and another after him, Biſhop of the Jews. Pag. 16. He thinketh that Timothy was Biſhop of Epheſus (or Angel) when Rev. 2. was wrote. Pag. 17. From Epiphanius he reckoneth above 50 years from the Revelation of John, Rev. 2. to the writing of Ignatius's Epiſtles. By which we may Calculate the time when the Office of half-Presbyters began to be invented, according to his own Computation. That pag. 21. & paſſim, his ſuppoſition of the 24 Biſhops of Judaea, ſitting about the Throne of James Biſhop of Jeruſalem, and his other ſuppoſition of their being ſo ordinarily there. And of the Biſhops of Provinces in other Nations, being ſo frequently many ſcore, if not hundred Miles off their people in the Metropolitane Cities, when the people had no other Prieſt to Officiate, doth tend to an Atheiſtical conceit, that the Ordinary uſe of Sacred Aſſemblies and Communion is no very needful thing, when in the beſt times by the beſt men, in whole Countreys at once, they were ſo much forborn.

Pag. 26. Again you have his full and plain Aſſertion, [That there were not in the ſpace within compaſs of which all the Books of the new Teſtament were written, any Presbyters, in our modern Notion of them, created in the Church, though ſoon after certainly in Ignatius time, (which was above 50 years after the Rev.) they were].

Pag. 60. He ſuppoſeth that whoever ſhould ſettle Churches under a Heathen King among Heathens, muſt accordinly make the Churches gathered ſubordinate to one another, as the Cities in which they are gathered were (though Heathen) ſubordinate to one another, of which more in due place.

Pag. 76, 77. He ſaith that [As Congregations, and Pariſhes are Synonimous in their Style, ſo I yield that Believers in great Cities were not at firſt divided into Pariſhes, while the number of Chriſtians in a City was ſo ſmall that they might well aſſemble in the ſame place, and ſo needed no Partitions, or Diviſions. But what diſadvantage is this to us, who affirm that one Biſhop, not a Colledge of Presbyters, preſided in that one Congregation, and that the Believers in the Regions and Villages about did belong to the care of that ſingle Biſhop, or City Church] A Biſhop and his Deacon were ſufficient at the firſt (to ſow) their Plantations—[For what is a Dioceſs but a Church in a City with the Suburbs and Territories, or Region belonging to it? And this certainly might be and remain under the Government of a ſingle Biſhop. Of any Church ſo bounded there may be a Biſhop, and that whole Church ſhall be his Dioceſs, and ſo he a Dioceſan Biſhop, though as yet this Church be not ſubdivided into more ſeveral Aſſemblies.] So that you ſee now what a Dioceſs is. And that you may know that we contend not about Names, while they call the Biſhop of one p. 108Congreation, a Dioceſane, we ſay nothing againſt him: A Dioceſan in our ſenſe is ſuch as we live under, that have made one Church of many hundred or a thouſand.

But Reader be not abuſed by words, when it is viſible Countreys that we talk of. As every Market-Town, or Corporation is foreign a City in the old ſenſe, ſo the Dioceſs of Lincoln. (which I live in) at this reckoning hath three or fourſcore Dioceſſes in it, and the Dioceſs of Norwich about 50 Dioceſſes in it, &c. That is ſuch Cities with the interjacent Villages.

Pag. 78. He ſaith [When they add theſe Angels were Congregational, not Dioceſan, they were every of them Angels of a Church in a City, having authority over the Regions adjacent and pertaining to that City, and ſo as CHURCH and CONGREGATION ARE ALL ONE, AS IN ORDINARY USE IN ALL LANGUAGES THEY ARE: Thus were Congregational and Dioceſan alſo. What follows of the paucity of Believers, in the greateſt Cities, and their meeting in one place, is willingly granted by us.

I muſt deſire the Reader to remember all this, when we come to uſe it in due place. And you may modeſtly ſmile to obſerve how by this and the foregoing words, the Dr. forgetfully hath caſt out all the Engliſh Dioceſans: While he maketh it needful that the Cities be Eccleſiaſtically ſubordinate as they are Civilly, and maketh it the very definition of a Dioceſan Biſhop, to be a Biſhop of a City with the Country or Suburbs belonging to it: But in England no leſſer Cities (ordinarily at leaſt) nor Corporation-Towns are at all Subject to the great Cities: Nor are any Conſiderable part of the Countrey Subject to them; nor do the Liberties of Cities, or Corporations, reach far from the Walls, or Towns. So that by this Rule the Biſhop of London, York, Norwich, and Briſtow would have indeed large Cities with narrow liberties: But the reſt would have Dioceſſes little bigger than we could allow to conſcionable Faithful Paſtors.

But he yet addeth more, p. 79. he will do more for our cauſe than the Presbyterians themſelves, who in their diſputes againſt the Independents-ſay that Jeruſalem had more Chriſtians belonging to the Church than could conveniently meet in one place; But, ſaith the Dr. [This is contrary to the Evidence of the Text, which ſaith▪ expreſty, v. 44. that all the Believers were foreign, meeting in one and the ſame place. The like may be ſaid of the other places, Act. 4. 4. and 5. 14. For certainly as yet though the number of believers increaſed, yet they were not diſtributed into ſeveral Congregations.

Will you yet have more? p. 80, 81. When the London Miniſters ſay that [the Believers of one City made but one Church in the Apoſtles days] he anſwereth [This obſervation I acknowledge to have perfect truth in it, and not to be confutable in any part: And therefore inſtead of rejecting, I ſhall imbrace it, and from thence conclude that there is no manner of incongruity in aſſigning of one Biſhop to one Church, and ſo one Biſhop in the Church of Jeruſalem, becauſe it is a Church, not Churches, BEING FORECED TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT WHERE THERE WERE MORE CHURCHES, THERE WERE MORE BISHOPS.] I am almoſt in doubt by this whether the Dr. were not againſt the Engliſh Prelacy, and he and I were not of a mind, eſpecially remembring that he ſaid nothing againſt my diſputations of Church Government written againſt himſelf, when I lived near him. Obſerve Reader, p. 1091. That even now he confeſſed that a Church and Congregation is all one. 2. And here he confeſſeth, that where there were more Churches, there were more Biſhops; and his words [Becauſe it is a Church, not Churches] ſeem to import that de jure he ſuppoſeth it is no Church without a Biſhop, and that there ſhould be no fewer Biſhops than Churches. And then I ask, 1. Where and when do all the Chriſtians in this Dioceſs, of above an hundred miles long, Congregate; who meet but in above a thouſand ſeveral Temples, and never know one of a thouſand of the Dioceſs? 2. Doth not this grant to the Browniſts, that the Pariſh Churches are no Churches, but onelyonly parts of the Dioceſane Church? 3. And then if it be proved that the Dioceſane Church▪form, is but of humane invention, what Church in England will they leave us, that is of divine inſtitution? This is the unhappineſs of overdoing to undo all; and of aſpiring too high, to fall down into nothing.

And doth he not ſpeak much to the ſame purpoſe, p. 87. [One City with the Territories 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, Act. 14. 23. is ſaid to be done in every City, Tit. 1. 5. T…e ſum of which obſervation is only this, that one City with the Territories adjoyning to it, never makes above one Church in the Scripture Style: (And yet he largely proveth the contrary, that there was one Church and Biſhop of Jewiſh Chriſtians, and one of Gentiles) whereas a Province, or Countrey, or Nations conſiſts, of many Cities, and ſo of many Epiſcopal Sees or Churches.] The like he hath again p. 90 §. 53.

But whereas p. 88. …e would Prove that a Province, or Nation, of many Churches, may be called one Church, becauſe the Churches in all the World are ſo called in our Creed, and in the Scripture: I anſwer, That he can never prove that many Churches are ever in Scripture called one, ſave only the Univerſal Church, which is but one, being Headed by one Head, even Chriſt. The Univerſal Church (as he ſaid before of a Church compared to Perſons) is One Collective body, as a Political Society related to Chriſt or conſtituted of Chriſt and all Chriſtians: And a particular Church is one as conſtituted of the Miniſterial Paſtors and People: But find any Text of Scripture that calleth the Churches of a Nation, or Province, one Church, in all the new Teſtament if you can.

In pag. 103. he giveth Reaſons for his ſingularity in interpreting ſo many Texts of Scripture; and ſheweth that as the Fathers differ from each other, (as Tirinus ſheweth) ſo we may alſo differ from them, (and I know not of any Expoſitor that ever wrote that hath more need of this Apology than Grotius and he.) And I miſlike not his Reaſons. But then how unſavoury is it for the ſame perſon to expect that we ſhould in reverence to one expoſitory word in Irenaeus, and another in Epiphanius, forſake the common ſenſe of the Fathers where they do agree? or that we muſt bow to every ancient Canon?

But I would not have him thought more ſingular than he is, leſt when I have anſwered him the Prelatiſts forſake him, and ſay that they are ſtill unanſwered, therefore I crave the Readers ſpecial obſervation of his words, p. 104, 105. [I might truly ſay that for thoſe minute conſiderations and conjectures wheren this Doctor diff…rs from ſome others who have written before him as to the manner of interpreting ſome few Texts, he hath the Suffrages of many of the learnedſt men of this Church at this day, and as far as he knows OF ALL that embrace the ſame cauſe with him.] Of p. 110which I only ſay, that if he do but minutely differ from others, and not at all from the moſt, I hope my confutation of him will not be impertinent as to the reſt. But if he lay the very ſtreſs of his cauſe upon novel Expoſitions of almoſt every Text which mentioneth Biſhops, Presbyters, Paſtors, and quite croſs the way of almoſt all (ſave Petavius) that ever went before him; then think whether that cauſe ſtand on ſo firm ground, as ſome perſwade, which needeth ſuch new foundations or ways of ſupport at this Age, in the judgement of ſuch learned men as theſe.

Pag. 119, 120, 121. He proveth that Dioceſane Biſhops are the only Elders of the Church which James adviſeth the ſick to ſend for: ſuppoſing the City Churches (even of Jeruſalem to be yet no bigger than that one Biſhop and a Deacon (who yet was not this Viſiter of the ſick) might do all the Miniſterial work. Where I confeſs he quite outgoeth me in extenuating the Churches in S. James's time. If the Church of Jeruſalem had ſeven Deacons, I will not belive him (pardon the incivility) that they had but one Presbyter. And (pardon me a greater boldneſs in ſaying) if he had tryed but as much as I have done what it is to do all the Paſtoral work for one Pariſh of 2 or 3000 Perſons in publick and private, he could not poſſibly have been of this Opinion. Nor do I think it likely, that when it is a ſingular Perſon that James bids ſend for the Elders of the Church, but that it implyeth that the Church where he was had more Elders than one. I confeſs that if it had been ſpoken either to Perſons, plurally, or of Churches plurally, the phraſe might well have ſignified the ſingle Elders of the ſeveral Churches: But to ſay to each ſick man ſingularly, Let him ſend for the Elders of the Church ſingularly) in common uſe of ſpeech ſignifieth that there were many Elders for that man to ſend for in the Church. And whereas he asketh whether a ſick man muſt ſend for the Colledge of Presbyters? I anſwer, that a ſick man may well ſend for the Presbyters or Miniſters, either one after another, as there is occaſion, or more than one at once if need require for his Reſolution. If we ſay to a ſick man in London, (ſend for the Phyſicians of the City, and let them adviſe you, &c.) it ſignifieth that the City hath more Phyſicians than one, and that he may adviſe with one, or more at once, o… per vices as he findeth Cauſe: and no man would ſpeak ſo to him, if London had but one Phyſician, and Norwich another, and York another, &c. And when, p. 121. he ſuppoſeth the Objection, that they have a mean opinion of viſiting the ſick, becauſe they ſay, it is not the Biſhops work (which he well maketh it to be) methinks this ſhould ſuit with no Engliſh Ears, who will quickly underſtand, that they ſpeak de facto of our Biſhops, to whom a ſick man may ſend an hundred, or fifty, or twenty Miles, to deſire him to come preſently, and pray with him, if his diſeaſe be a Phrenſie which depriveth him of his Wits, and all about him be as mad: And the Biſhop with us may be ſaid to viſit the ſick of his Dioceſs, as a man may be ſaid to weed a Field that plucketh up a weed or two where he goeth; or to build a City, becauſe he knockt up a Na…l or two in his own Houſe.

Pag. 120. It is obſervable which he ſaith [Indeed, if it were not (the Biſhops work to viſit the ſick) how could it be …y the Biſhop, when other parts of his Office became his full Employment, commited to the Presbyter. For, 1. he could not commit that to others, if he firſt had it not in himſelf: And, 2. This was the only Reaſon of ordaining inferior Officers in the Church, that part of the Biſhops ta…k might be performed by them.

Anſ. Either he believed that the Office of a Subject Presbyter (or Order as they p. 111call it) was inſtituted by God, and ſetled in the Church as neceſſary by his Spirit, and Law, or not: If he do, then Qu. 1. Whether the work of theſe Presbyters, after the inſtitution, be not the work of their own Office, and not (in the individual acts) the Biſhops? As Eve was a Rib of Adam materially, but when ſhe was a woman ſhe was no part of Adam, nor her acts like his acts; and ſo of all woman-kind thereafter. Qu. 2. Whether the Biſhop any other way commit the work or Office to him, than by calling him to an Office which God himſelf had made or inſtituted, and Miniſterially inveſting him in it as a Servant (that hath no land of his own) may be ſent by his Maſter to inveſt another in ſome Land which he hath given him, by a Legal Solemn delivery of poſſeſſion; or as a Steward may ſend ſuch Reapers into his Maſters field as his Maſter did before exactly deſcribe to him? Chriſt being the only maker of the Office, and punctual deſcriber of it, and the Biſhop, people, and Magiſtrates altogether, doing no more but chooſe the Perſon deſcribed as fit, and deliver him poſſeſſion of the place.

But if he thought that the Biſhop himſelf doth make the Presbyters Office, by parting his own, and ſo giving him as much as he thinketh fit, I ſhall ſhame this Opinion in due place.

Pag. 132. (and in his Diſſert.) he would make us believe that (Polycarp's Epiſtle, and ſo) Clement's [to the Church foreign] were to be interpreted extenſively as relating to foreign, to the Church in the Pariſh, that is the Dioceſs, of Corinth, or Province of Achaia: And ſo he diſto…teth Phil. 1. …. and other places; but in all his Citations giveth us not a word of proof, that foreign ſignifieth to dwell in the Circuit or extent of a Dioceſs, and not ſimply to ſo…uru or dwell. As if foreign were derived from foreign, and as if the firſt notion of foreign were a Dioceſs, or a City with its Territories: As Pat Young ſaith on Clement's Epiſt. p. 1. [cum idem ſit foreign quod foreign …t videre eſt ſtatim in initio libri Ruth & alibi apud 70: which he further proveth, yea and by an old Inſcription of an Altar brought from Delos, &c. ſee the place. And we took it to be agreed on that foreign in its ſtrict ſenſe is but habito tanquam peregrinus, advena ſum; and in its uſual larger ſenſe, juxta habito, accolo, ſum pr…ximus, vicinus accola. And foreign & foreign but incolatus & vicinia & habitatio propinqua; a place of cohabitation, or a neighbourhood: As we ſtill take cohabitation to be a neceſſary qualification or diſpoſitio materiae of a Church-member (of the ſame particular Church, contrary to the Dioceſan ſtate, where the Members never ſee each other, nor hear of their Names.) And though foreign in proceſs of time (as Biſhops enlarged their Dioceſs or Church) came to ſignifie a whole Country, or Circuit as large as a Dioceſs did, yet no man can prove that it was ſo from the beginning of the Churches; or ſignified any determined ſpace of ground, beyond the habitation of the members of one Worſhipping Church or Congregation: Even as foreign is not to build in the ſame Dioceſe, but nea… or in the ſame Neighbourhood; and foreign is not to ſet ones dwelling in the ſame Dioceſs, but vicinity: That foreign alſo in its ſtricteſt ſignification is but inquilinus a ſojourner, and in its largeſt foreign a cohabitant, but in bo…n ſignifieth a Neighbour (and not ſtrangers dwelling out of the notice of each other through a Dioceſs) is ſo fully ſhewed out of many Authors by the Baſil Lexicon (publiſhed by Henr. Petr. 1568) that I need not add to it. And the Authors of that Lexicon ſuppoſe, that the third (the Church) ſignification p. 112is primarily but from foreign, ut accola, that [Paraeci huic dicuntur qui fanum aliquod accolnit (not that dwell near a thouſand or many hundred ſeveral Churches) unde & foreign curia & viciniae conventus (not many hundred Conventions) accol…rum coitio & congregatio, hoc parochiam dicunt abſurde. Much more would they call the newer Notion of a Dioceſs-Pariſh like ours, abſurd. In Heb. 11. 9. and Luk. 24. 18. Act 7. 6. 1 Pet. 2. 11. 1 Pet. 1. 17. Act. 13. 17. Act. 7. 29. Eph. 2. 19. (which are all the places in the new Teſtament where theſe words are uſed that I know of) the Dr. himſelf in his Annotations doth not once pretend that the word is uſed in his Province ſenſe: And is not Clemens and Polycarp liker to uſe the word in the Scripture ſenſe, than in this aliene ſenſe, that ſince came into the Church? We muſt therefore take leave, till better proof of the contrary, to expound Clemens, Polycarp, and Ignatius, meerly by [ſojourning and cohabiting in ſuch a vicinity as Perſonal and Congregational Communion required.

But his only ſeeming proof is (again) becauſe Paul's Epiſtle to the Corinthians, was to the Province of Achaia. To which again I anſwer, that Paul's Epiſtle to the Corinthians was to be communicated to all Achaia (and after to all the World;) but that maketh not Corinth, and Achaia, nor [the Church at Corinth,] and [the Churches of all Achaia] to be the ſame: Nay, Paul expreſly diſtinguiſheth them by the Conjunction, as aforeſaid; elſe his words were Tautological, if by [To the Church of Cod, which is at Corinth, with all the Saints which are in all Achaia] he had meant [To the Church of God, which is in all Achaia, with the Saints that are in all Achaia] And I had thought all Achaia had been more than a Pariſh, even as the word foreign was uſed Eccleſiaſtically in thoſe times, in the opinion of the Dioceſane Divines themſelves. And ſo much of Dr. Hammond, and all that have written for our Prelacy.