Vindication of the Dissertations Concerning Episcopacy, Chapter 1 · Section 18
Section XVIII.
Of the uſe of the word Biſhop for Archbiſhop in Tertullian: Of Angel in Chriſts Epiſtle.
A Fourth anſwer, or rather confutation, is added, That if this opinion were true, then Tertullian did not doe well in ſaying that St. John made Polycarpe Biſhop of Smyrna, but he ſhould rather have ſaid that he made him Archbiſhop. And our Saviour Chriſt had not given to theſe ſeven Angels their due Titles, for he muſt have written to the Angel of the Church of Epheſus, together with all thoſe Churches in the Cities ſubordinate to Epheſus. And ſo likewiſe of the other ſix.
2. To this I reply, that the affirming the ſeven Angels to have been Metropolitanes, no way obligeth us to find fault either with Tertullians or our Saviour's ſtyle. Not with Tertullian's, for 1. an Arch-Biſhop is a Biſhop, though dignified above ſome others of that order. Secondly, ſuppoſing Smyrna to be a Metropolis (as no doubt, if it were, Tertullian knew and ſuppoſed it to be) then his ſtyling Polycarp Biſhop of Smyrna, is aequivalent to his calling him a Metropolita… or Archbiſhop, As acknowledging Canterbury to be a Metropolitical See in England, the affirming William Laud to be conſtituted Biſhop of Canterbury, is all one, as to affirme him Archbiſhop.
3. Thus when*In Tit. 1. Hom. 1. Chryſoſtome ſaith of Titus, that foreign, an intire Iſland and the judgement of ſo many. Biſhops was committed to him, what is this but to affirme Titus Arch-biſhop of Crete? And yet*Lib. 3. cap 4. Euſebius, who believed this, and adverted to it, as much as Chryſoſtome, uſes this phraſe, foreign, that he was Biſhop of the Churches of Creet, calling him Biſhop diſtinctly, though by the mention of the Churches in the plural, 'tis evident he meant the ſame that we doe by Arch-Biſhop.
4. So againe*Lib 5. cap. 23. Euſebius of Irenaeus, that he foreign, was Biſhop of the Provinces of France, which muſt needs ſignifie Archbiſhop of Lyons, for ſo he was. And 'tis certaine that other of the Antients uſe the word foreign Arch-Biſhop, of thoſe which were no otherwiſe qualified for that title, as when Saint Cyprian the Biſhop of Carthage, under which the whole Province of Africk is comprehended, is by the*In Trallo. can. 2. Councel of Conſtantinople called foreign, Arch-Biſhop of the region of Africk.
5. The ſame anſwer will competently ſuffice, for the reconciling Chriſt's ſtyle and ours, for ſuppoſing Epheſus to have been a Metropolis, the writing to the Angel of that Church, implyes writing to thoſe other Churches in the Cities ſubordinate to Epheſus, and need not be more fully expreſt, as when the Apoſtle wrote to the Church of Corinth, and not onelyonly ſo, but to all the Saints (and ſo all the Churches) in all Achaia. 2 Cor. 1. 1. 'tis certaine that the former Epiſtle was written to thoſe very ſame Churches (viz. all under the Metropolis of Corinth) and yet it is inſcribed to the Church of God which is at Corinth, 1 Cor. 1. 1. without mentioning of Achaia, ſave onelyonly in a general indefinite phraſe, with all that in every place call on the name of Jeſus.
6. Secondly, the word in Chriſt's Epiſtle being not Biſhop but Angel, is not at all lyable to this exception, For why may not an Arch-Biſhop be as fitly called an Angel, as a Biſhop would be? nay if it be remembred what was formerly cited out of Clemens Alexandrinus, Strom. 6. that there are ſeven Angels which have the greateſt power, by him ſtyled foreign, the firſt-borne rulers of the Angels; parallel to the phraſe in Dan. 7. 10. 13. foreign the head, Lords or chiefe Princes, or, as we ordinarily ſtile them, the Archangels, of which number Michael is there named to be one, There will then be more than a tolerable propriety of ſpeech in Chriſt's ſtyle, a moſt exact critical notation of their being Arch-Biſhops, and withall a farther account of Tertullian's calling Polycarp a Biſhop of Smyrna, though he were Arch-Biſhop, juſt as the Archangels in Daniel are more than once called Angels in the Revelation.
7. For a cloſe of this mater they are pleaſed to adde their Character, not over-benigne of thoſe by whom this device, as they ſtyle it, was found out for the honour of Archpiſcopacy, [that they did aspire unto that dignity.]
8. If hereby be meant the Lord Primate of Ireland in his diſcourſe of the Original of Biſhops, this character can have no propriety in it, he having quietly enjoyed that dignity many yeares before the writing hereof. If it be deſigned for a reproach to me, I ſhall elude the blow by not thinking it ſuch. For as at a time when Epiſcopacy it ſelfe was by the Parliament aboliſht, (and that Act of ſeverity actually put in execution) it had been a great folly in any to hope that he ſhould ever attaine to that Office of Dignity in the Church, (and what ever other follies I have been guilty of, truly that was none of them) ſo I thinke there could not a point of time more commodiouſly have been choſen in the ſpace of above 1600 year…s, wherein a man might have better ſecured a Diſcourſe for Biſhops and Metropolitanes, from the Cenſure of aspiring to either of thoſe Dignities, that was that, wherein that Book was publiſhed.
9. To this if I adde by way of retortion, that it is evident that they which write this Jus Divinum Miniſterii Evangeliei, doe aſpire every one of them to their part of a Ruling Preſbytery, which their brethren that have not thoſe Ambitions are farre from thinking to have any Divine Stamp upon it, I ſhall have given an account of the unskilfulneſſe of their Reproaches, as well as of the invalidity of their Anſwers.
10. As for the feare which their Diſcourſe on this matter ſuggeſts to their more moderate brethren, that if a Jus Divinum be ſtampt on Archbiſhops and Primates, and Patriarchs, they may be forced by the ſame proportion to put a Divine ſtamp upon the Pope himſelfe, I perſwade my ſelfe that I have given the ingenious reader a ſatisfactory account of the inconſequence hereof, in a Diſcourſe of Schiſme, to which I ſhall refer him, if he need, or deſire farther trouble or direction in this buſineſſe.