Vindication of the Dissertations Concerning Episcopacy, Chapter 1 · Section 3
Section 3.
Of the negative Argument from St. John's not uſing the word Biſhop. Of foreign in the Revelation.
IN the next place by way of anſwer to this plea of the Prelatiſts, we are referred to three writings of their party, Smectymnuus, the Vindication of Smectymnuus, the Humble Addreſſes of the Divines at the Iſle of Wight, wherein, ſay they, theſe things are fully, clearely, and ſatisfactorily handled.
2. But it being certaine that every one of theſe three was publiſht ſome yeares before the Diſſertations, I ſhould thinke it ſtrange that the particulars there inſiſted on by me, ſhould by divination be thus anſwered before their conception, being able truly to profeſſe, that though I am not unwilling to make uſe of any mans aid for defending truth, yet none of thoſe writings, to which any of thoſe three were given in anſwer, were by me made uſe of in thoſe compoſitions.
3. But we are ſuperſeded the trouble of examining any of theſe three, by the leave that is craved to borrow from them what may be uſefull for the turne, and then in like manner I ſhall more willingly receive from theſe, what ſhall appeare to anſwer, or prejudge our plea, than undertake new troubles in farther unneceſſary ſearch of it.
4. Firſt, then they deſire it may be conſidered, that S. John, the Penman of the Revelation doth neither in it, nor in any of his other writings ſo much as upon the (by; I ſuppoſe, for the Printer failes me) name Biſhop. Hee names the name Presbyter frequently in the Revelation, yea, when he would ſet out the office of thoſe who are neereſt the throne of Chriſt in his Church, Rev. 4. he calls himſelfe a Presbyter, Ep. 2. And whereas in S. John's dayes ſome new expreſſions were uſed in the Christian Church, which were not in Scripture, as the Chriſtian Sabbath began to be called the Lords day, and Chriſt himſelfe the Word, now both theſe are found in the writings of St John; And it is ſtrange to us that the Apoſtle ſhould mention a new phraſe, and not mention a new Office erected by this time (as our Brethren ſay) in the Church, especially if wee conſider that Polycarpe (as it related) was made Biſhop by him; And no doubt if hee had been made Biſhop in a prelaticall ſenſe, we ſhould have found the name Biſhop in ſome of his writings, who lived ſo long as to ſee Epiſcopacy ſetled in the Church, as our Adverſaries would make us believe.
5. We are now to conſider what degree of conviction, or Argument, to the prejudice of our pretenſions, can be fetcht from this large conſideration. And firſt it is moſt evident and notorious among all Artiſts, that an argument from Authority cannot conclude negatively that there were no Biſhops in St John's time, becauſe St. John doth not mention Biſhops. It is the ſame way of arguing, as if they ſhould conclude that there was no God in the time of writing the Canonicall Chapters of Heſter, becauſe God is not found once mentioned in thoſe Chapters. And yet of this inartificiall kinde is the whole diſcourſe of this Paragraph, the premiſſes barely negative throughout all the conſideration; And ſo nothing is concluſible from it to the prejudice of us, or benefit of our adverſaries.
6. Secondly, all that this conſideration pretends to, is terminated in the bare name of Biſhop, that is it which they pretend is not to be found in St. John. But 1. They knew that the word Angel is oft in St John, and by us conteſted, by the ſingularity of the perſon one Angel in each Church (and other Characters) to conclude the Office of Biſhop as irrefragably, as if the word Biſhop were there ſpecified. Nay of this wee have a competent experience, that if the word Biſhop had been found there, it would by Presbyterians be as readily expounded to ſignifie a Presbyter, or colledge of ſuch (for ſo certainly they have done in other places) and truly with as much reaſon and ſatisfaction to any impartiall judge, as they have affirmed the word Angel in each Church to denote ſuch. And therefore
7. Thirdly, I ſhall demand, would the Apoſtle St. John's uſing the name Biſhop, be at all uſefull to the Prelatiſts intereſts, to conclude that there was ſuch an Office in the Church in his time, or would it not? If not, then ſure it is not to our prejudice, that hee hath not mentioned that name, and then this whole conſideration is perfectly to no purpoſe. If it would, then ſure St. Pauls and St. Lukes frequent mentions of them (I may adde St. Peter alſo) will ſupply St. John's omiſſions, and conclude there were Biſhops in their time, and that was long before St. Johns death, if it had been conſidered.
8. Fourthly, when it is ſaid that St. John frequently names the name Presbyter in the Apocalyps, 'tis not imaginable that they ſhould thinke the Author of the Diſſertations could receive any prejudice from thence, when hee hath avowed to believe that thoſe foreign Elders, mentioned in thoſe ſo many places of the Revelation, were the 24. Biſhops of Judaea ſitting in Councell at Jeruſalem their Metropolis, encompaſſing James the Biſhop there together with the foure living creatures, denoting the foure Apoſtles that were joyned with them in the councell, and the 7. Lamps, the emblemes of the 7. Deacons attending; Of which matter till they have diſproved what is commodiouſly deduced Diſſert. 4. c. 20. Sect. 10. I ſhall have no need farther to inlarge, it being perfectly uſeleſſe to our preſent inquiry, that either the word Biſhop or Elder ſhould be uſed by S. John, for a ſingle Prefect in the Chriſtian Church, ſuppoſing (as now we do in the Objection, and tis but a begging of the queſtion in the respondent to ſuppoſe the contrary) that the word Angel is a notation of it.
9. By this it appeares fiftly, how little wee incommodated by the poſition of theſe Elders in the Revelation placed neereſt to the throne of Chriſt in his Church, for ſuppoſing, as I doe, that Chriſt is by way of viſion repreſented there under the perſon of the Biſhop of Jeruſalem ſitting in councell, and encompaſſed (on each ſide) with a Semicircle of Thrones, on which ſat the 24 Biſhops of Judea, I can well allow theſe 24. (call them Elders, or what you pleaſe) to be neereſt to that middle throne, whereon Chriſt is ſeated. And truely if it ſhould be otherwiſe interpreted of Presbyters in the moderne notion of the word, it would be hard to make the other parts of the viſion to beare proportion with that phanſy; For I muſt ſuppoſe, according to St. John's words, that in the viſion theſe thrones were ſet up in Heaven; And then I ſhall demand, was that a repreſentation of any councell or Judicature on Earth▪ or not? If it were not, then nothing can be inferred thence in favour of Presbyters, more than of Biſhops, for of both theſe we ſpeake, as of Officers on Earth; But if it were, then applying it to Presbyters, it muſt follow, that in the midſt of them there is ſome other (invironed on each ſide by them) foreign, ſitting upon that throne of principall dignity, before whom alſo they on the other thrones muſt fall downe v.10. (or elſe the parallel will not hold throughout) and the leaſt that can be ſignified hereby, will be ſuperiority of dignity in him that ſits on that middle throne above all the 24. Elders, which will be deemed to exceede the caſe of a Prolocutor or Moderator of an Aſſembly, which is the utmost that the Presbyterian foreign or equality can admit of, but much more commodiouſly agrees to the Metropolitan of all Iudea, ſitting in a Nationall Councell with the Biſhops about him, for of theſe we doubt not to affirme that they were as much inferior to him, as this repreſentation doth pretend them to be.
10. As for the ſence affixt to it by the Aſſemblers, that the foreign are Presbyters in the moderne notion, and that he that ſits in the midſt of them is Chriſt, this is againſt all analogy, and rules of interpreting, a mining and confounding the Originall with the Copy, the type with the Antitype, interpreting one part of the viſi…n, as if it were in Heaven (for it was there where Christ did ſit as Judge) and the other as if it were on Earth, for ſure the Presbyters in this notion are to be conſidered as there; And this is a very ſufficient prejudice againſt their interpretation (if there were not enough beſides) and ſuch as no way preſſeth our way of ſetting it, as hath been already manifeſted.
11. Sixtly, for his calling himſelfe a Presbyter Ep. 2. I anſwer, that as farre as this allegation hath truth, it hath no force in it at all againſt our pretentions. He doth indeed call himſelfe foreign (the Elder, we fitly render it) noting thereby (according to analogy with the ſolemne notion of the word both among ſacred and prophane Writers, ſet downe at large Diſſert. 4. c. 19.) a perſon of authority in the Church of Chriſt; an Apoſtle firſt, and then the ſupreme Governour of the whole Iewiſh Church in Aſia, which is but proportionable to Saint Pauls beginning his Epiſtles with Paul an Apoſtle (or Commiſſioner) of Ieſus Chriſt (placed in that power in the Church by Chriſt himſelfe) and with the ſame ſtyle in the front of Saint Peters Epiſtles, onelyonly with this Characteriſtick note peculiar to Saint Iohn in his Gospell and Epiſtles, of omitting the expreſſion of his owne name; And then all that this text is of force to doe, is to prove that the word foreign doth not import a Presbyter (in our moderne uſe of the word) governing in common with other Presbyters, but rather a ſingular Governor of the Church, ſuch as Biſhops are by us conteſted to be; And ſo the Greek Scholiaſts have expreſſed it, foreign, By the word Elder he calls himſelfe Biſhop. And this, 'tis certaine, is for the intereſt of the Author of the Diſſertations, and no way to his prejudice, if it had been adverted by them that produce it.
12. Seventhly, when 'tis ſaid that in Saint Iohn's dayes ſome New expreſſions were uſed in the Chriſtian Church, which were not in Scripture, as the Lords day, and the Word, I profeſſe not to comprehend what advantage to their praetenſions could be deſigned or aimed at in this part of the conſideration: For 1. how can it truly be ſaid, that the word foreign, Lord's day, which is in the Revelation, and foreign, the Word, which is in Saint Iohn's Goſpell, were not in Scripture? I muſt ſuppoſe the meaning is, that they were not in any other writings of Scripture, except Saint Iohn's: But then 2. that doth not infer them to be new expreſſions in Saint Iohn's dayes, as theſe dayes are diſtinguiſht from the dayes of the other Apostles, whom Iohn ſurvived, but only that they were idiomes or characters of ſpeech that Saint Iohn delighted to make uſe of.
13. Thus indeed 'tis ordinarily obſerved of his expreſſing of Chriſt by foreign the word, which yet is taken from the Ancients of the Jewiſh Church (the Chaldes paraphraſe being knowne frequently to uſe foreign the word of the Lord, and Plato ſeems to have been acquainted with the expreſſion, which cauſed Amelius to ſweare at the reading the beginning of S. John's Gospell, that that Barbarian was of their Plato's mind, that the word of God was in order of a Principle) and perhaps not peculiarly to him appropriate, for*In Pandect. pag. 31. Budaeus a very learned Critick in Greek affirmes Saint Luke to have uſed it in this notion, cap. 1. 2. and if he doth not, yet ſtill 'twill be but a peculiar part of Saint John's ſtyle, which if he had written his Goſpell in the ſame yeare that Saint Matthew did his, he would doubtleſſe have made uſe of, the phraſe being certainly in the world before that time (and ſo not new, as they would have it) and the uſage of it in the Church being in all reaſon to be derived from Saint John's uſe of it (who was from thence called foreign the Divine) not Saint John's uſe of it from the new admiſſion of it into the Chriſtian Church.
14. And for the word foreign, Lord's day, as it is not certaine that it is the Chriſtian Sabbath (I meane the weekly Lord's day,) which is meant by that title once uſed in the Revelation, but as probably the feaſt of Eaſter, the annual commemoration of Chriſt's riſing from the dead (and accordingly Andreas Caeſarienſis ſets it indifferently, yet ſo as it ſeems rather to incline to the later, foreign, the Lord's day bearing the memorial of the reſurrection of Christ) ſo in what notion ſoever it be taken, it was againſt Saint Iohn's uſe of the word that gave it authority in the following dialect of the Church, not the Churches uſage (that we any where can diſcerne) from whence Saint Iohn derived it; And ſo this will be an inſtance as ineffectual as the former, to inferre the concluſion to which it is deſigned: For indeed bating the unskilfulneſſe of the argument, ab authoritate negative, already mentioned, what a ſtrange way of concluding would this be? S. Iohn uſeth the words [foreign, the word] and [foreign, Lord's day] (ſuppoſing alſo, that 'tis true which is added) and no other writer of the Scripture uſeth them but in ſtead of them, [the Sonne of God] (Meſſias, Chriſt) and the [firſt day of the week] therefore if there had been any office of Biſhops erected in the Church in Saint Iohn's time, it is ſtrange that Saint Iohn ſhould not mention the name foreign Biſhop: 'Tis at the firſt hearing cleare enough, that there is no ſtrangeneſſe in this, both becauſe Saint Iohn undertooke not to ſet downe a Dictionary of all words or cuſtomes which were in his time in the Church, and becauſe there is no proportion held betwixt the members of the compariſon, as hath been ſhewed. And it will yet be leſſe ſtrange, becauſe 1. it is eaſily ſuppoſeable and not ſtrange, that he ſhould have no occaſion at all to mention that office, or that mentioning it, he ſhould doe it in his owne choſen expreſſion, foreign Angel, or foreign, Elder (as in other greater matters he is acknowledged and allowed to doe) by either of thoſe ſignifying the ſame thing as expreſſely as the uſing of foreign Biſhop would have done: And 2. it is otherwiſe as manifeſt by Saint Paul and Saint Luke, that the word foreign Biſhop, and the office belonging to it were before the time of Saint John's writings uſed in the Church, as it could be, if Saint Iohn had made expreſſe mention of it.
15. And laſtly, for the higheſt round in the foreign, the ſpecial part of the conſideration, our affirmation that Polycarp was made Biſhop by Saint Iohn, that doth not (any more than all the reſt) inferre it neceſſary that Saint Iohn ſhould mention the name Biſhop: Saint Iude, I hope, is ſuppoſed by the Aſſemblers to have conſtituted ſome Presbyters in the Church, and yet he in his Epiſtle hath made no mention of any ſuch name or office. And ſo much for that firſt conſideration.