Vindication of the Dissertations Concerning Episcopacy, Chapter 1 · Section 19
Section XIX.
Of Diviſion into Pariſhes, and Vnion into Dioceſſes. Of Dioceſan Biſhops in the Apoſtles dayes. Elders in every Church, Act. 14. Elders of the Church, Act. 20. That place vindicated from exception.
AFter all this, they adde a fourth (whether Anſwer or ſuppletory Conſideration) for the concluſion of this Diſcourſe concerning the Aſian Angels, and I ſhall follow them to that more cheerfully, becauſe it lookes like a concluſion.
2. It is this, That it can never be provid that theſe Aſian Angels were Biſhops in a Praelaticall ſenſe, much leſſe Arch-Biſhops and Metropolitanes. For it is believed upon all parts, that believers in great Cities, were not divided into ſet and fixt Congregations and pariſhes, till long after the Apoſtles dayes, and that Pariſhes were not united into Dioceſes till 260. years after Chriſt. And therefore ſure we are that there could not be Dioceſane Churches and Dioceſane Biſhops formerly ſo called in the Apoſtles dayes; Theſe Angels were Congregationall, not Dioceſan. In the beginning of Chriſtianity the number of Believers, even in the greatest Cities were ſo few, that they might well meet foreign in the ſame place. And theſe were called the Chu…ch of the City, and therefore to ordaine Elders foreign, are all one in Scripture.
3. To the praeface of this concluſion, that it cannot be proved] it is againe very ſufficient to anſwer, that when a propoſition hath already been proved ſo farre, that no anſwer hath been rendred, which at all ſatisfies, or invalidates the force of the proofes, it is very unlike Artiſts to ſay, that it cannot be proved. Nay, although ſome inconvenience were producible, which would preſſe our aſſertion yet the old rule would require it's place, incommodum non ſolvit argumentum, the mention of an inconvenience inſuing, doth not take off the force of an argument.
4. But we need not that warineſſe here; the reaſon which is here annext to prove that it cannot be proved, is of no force againſt us, For 1. as Congregations and Pariſhes are ſynonimous in their ſtyle, ſo I yeild that Believers in great Cities were not at firſt divided into Pariſhes, while the number of the Chriſtians in a City was ſo ſmall, that they might well aſſemble in the ſame place, and ſo needed no partitions or diviſions.
5. But what diſadvantage is this to us, who affirme that one Biſhop, not a College of Presbyters, preſided in this one Congregation, and that the Believers in the Region and Villages about, did belong to the care of that ſingle-Biſhop of the City-church? May not theſe be ruled by a Biſhop as well before, as after the diviſion into Pariſhes? Or is this diviſion more neceſſary to the Government by one Biſhop in each City, than to the Government of more Preſbyters in every City? In all reaſon the diviſion of this one into ſeverall Pariſhes ſhould make Preſbyters more neceſſary after than before ſuch diviſion, that each Pariſh might have one Presbyter, to officiate among them in things of daily uſe; and upon that account I ſuppoſe it was, that when the number of Believers was ſo farre increaſed, that all the Chriſtians of a City could not meet commodiouſly in one place, and when the Regions and Villages ſo abounded with Proſelytes that in reſpect of them alſo it was neceſſary, then the Biſhop of each City thought fit to conſt tute Presbyters, in our moderne notion of them, many in every City, and many in every Region, one in every Village, though as yet the word Pariſh, in our moderne ſenſe, was not come into the World.
6. And ſo this is farre from being Argumentative againſt us, it is rather uſefull to confirme what is aſſerted by us, that it is againſt the whole Scheme which the Scriptures or firſt writers give us of Churches, to imagine that in every City there was by the Apoſtles a College of Presbyters conſtituted, when as they agree to aſſure us a Biſhop and his Deacon were ſufficient at the firſt (ſo thin) Plantations.
7. So againe when they take it for granted that Pariſhes were not united into Dioceſes till 260. yeares after Chriſt; I ſhall aske 1. whether they were ſooner divided into Claſſes, &c. and if not, what they have gained to their Jus Divinum by this obſervation?
8. But then ſecondly, 'tis cleare that there might be Dioceſes before this diviſion into Pariſhes, in our moderne notion; For what is a Dioceſ… but a Church in a City with the Suburbs and Territorie or Region belonging to it? And this certainly might be, and …emaine under the Government of a ſingle Biſhop, as well before, as after any more minute diſtributions into ſuch, as we now call Pariſhes.
9. For it is one thing for the Church of this City to be divided from the Church of every other City, another thing for the ſame Church to be divided into many Aſſembles; The firſt is it which is required for the ſetting up of Government; and of any ſuch Church ſo bounded there may be a Biſhop, and that whole Church ſhall be his Dioceſe, and ſo he a Dioceſa… Biſhop, though as yet this Church be not ſubdivided into more ſeverall Aſſemblies.
10. And therefore when they adde, that there could not be Dioceſan Churches and Biſhops formerly ſo called in the Apoſtles dayes, unleſſe they have ſome little aequivocation in the word Dioceſan, It is moſt certaine they have no reaſon on which to found their confidence, For that there was a Church in each City, and it's territory (howſoever governed by one or more) is moſt certaine, and equally affirmed by them and us, and equally their intereſt and ours, that it be affirmed. As for the uſe of the word foreign, that hath oft varied, and hath ſometimes been of a larger, ſometimes of a narrower ſignification, and ſo hath foreign, the originall of our Pariſh alſo, but I hope our contentions muſt not be alwayes about words, when the matter is ſufficiently agreed on among us, and the words ſufficiently explained to expreſſe that matter.
11. And therefore when they adde theſe Angels were congregationall, not Dioceſan, the reply is obvious, they were every of them Angels of a Church in a City, having authority over the Region adjacent, and pertaining to that City, and ſo as Church and Congregation are all one (as in ordinary uſe in all languages they are) they were Congregationall and Dioceſan alſo.
12. What followes of the paucity of believers in the greateſt Cities, and their meeting in one place, as alſo of a Church and City being all one, is willingly granted by us, and hath not the leaſt appearance of being uſefull to their pretentions, or hurtfull to ours, and therefore I have no temptation to make any the leſt Reply to it.
13. That which next followes, though it concerne us not to examine it, our intereſt being equally ſecured, be it true or falſe, yet I cannot but take ſome notice of it in paſſing, becauſe it is a little extraordinary.
14. Afterwards, ſay they, we conceive that believers became ſo numerous in theſe great Cities, as that they could not conveniently meet in one place; Thus it was in the Church of Jeruſalem, Act. 2. 41. and 4. 4. and 5. 14. and thus poſſibly it might be in moſt of theſe Aſian Churches in St. John's time.
15. Here certainly the word [Afterwards] is relative, and referrs to the Antecedent in the former Paragraph, and that is, [In the beginning of Chriſtianity] Hereupon I demand, what time is that which they call [the beginning of Chriſtianity?] Is it that wherein Chriſt continued on the Earth? If ſo, they will eaſily believe us, that we doe not think, that Dioceſan Biſhops were placed in the Church, within that period If it be the time immediately following the Reſurrection of Chriſt, when the Apoſtles began to preach and propagate the Faith, then how come they to divide that time, which is ſpoken of Act. 2. 41. from that time of the beginning of Chriſtianity, by this word [Afterward] for tis certain what is there ſtoried of the 3000. Converts, is the effect of the firſt Sermon preached by any of the Apoſtles immediately upon the deſcent of the Holy Ghoſt upon them, and the gift of Tongues, the wonderment whereof brought thoſe ſo many Auditors together.
16. So ſecondly when they ſay of this point of time, Act. 2. 41. The believers were ſo numerous that they could not conveniently me…t in one place, This is contrary to the evidence of the Text, which ſaith expreſly v 44. That all the believers were foreign, which in the laſt paragraph, they interpreted, meeting in …ne and the ſame place. The like might 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 ſeverall Congregations. But this by the way, being aſſured that this diſquiſition is perfectly extrinſecall to the matter in debate betweene us, becauſe as at Jeruſalem the antients are cleare in affirming, that ſoone after Chriſt's Aſcenſion,*foreign. Euſeb. Eccl. Hiſt. l. 2 c. 1. Ex. Clem. foreign. Peter and James and John choſe James the juſt, the Brother of the Lord, and conſtituted him Biſhop or Jeruſalem, which is all that we need pretend to from the ſtory of that Church, ſo it matters not much at what point of time that was done, whether at the very beginning or afterwards, much leſſe how ſoone it was that that Church was diſtributed into ſeverall divided Aſſemblies, the Creation of the Biſhop not at all depending on that, as hath formerly been ſhewed.
17. Hence will it appeare to how very little purpoſe are thoſe cautions added, and obſervations made in the remaining part of this ſixt Chapter.
18. Thus, ſay they, poſſibly it might be (i.e. the believers be ſo numerous in great Cities, that they could not conveniently meet in one place) in moſt of theſe Aſian Churches in St. John's time. But yet notwithstanding all this, there are three things diligently to be obſerved; Firſt, that theſe meeting places were frequented promiſcuouſly and indiſtinctly, and that believers were not divided into ſet and fixed Churches or Congregations in the Apoſtles dayes.
19. But firſt I demand, Is there any truth in this obſervation? was not the Church of Jeruſalem in the Apoſtles dayes a ſet and fixed Church, ſo as to be perfectly ſevered from the Church of Alexandria and Epheſus? Was not James the Brother of the Lord Biſhop of the one, and not of the other?
20. Secondly, why was this for the Preſbyterians intereſt to be ſo diligently obſerved? If one of theſe Churches were not thus divided and ſevered from others, how could it be governed by a Preſbytery, as they pretend it was? Muſt it not be a determinate fixed body that is governed by any, whether Biſhop or Presbyters? I profeſſe not to be able to diſcerne by my moſt diligent obſervation, why this was ſo neceſſary to be ſo diligently obſerved.
21. Secondly, (ſay they, it muſt be as diligently obſerved) that notwithſtanding theſe different meeting places, yet the Believers of one City made but one Church in the Apoſtles dayes, as is evident in the Church of Jeruſalem, which is called a Church not Churches, Act. 8. 1. & 15. 6. & 22. 16. And ſo likewiſe it is called the Church of Epheſus, and the Church of Thyatira, &c. not Churches, &c.
22. This Obſervation I acknowledge to have perfect truth in it, and not to be confutable in any part (ſave onelyonly that the two latter Texts are certainly miſquoted, and not rectified in the Errata) 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 forced to acknowledge that where there were more Churches there were more Biſhops, and ſo likewiſe one Angel of Epheſus, and of Thyatira, &c. This I ſuppoſe was not the thing they meant to inferre from hence, nor indeed doe I conceive it neceſſarily inferred from (onelyonly very agreeable to) the oneneſſe of each Church, without other arguments to joyne with it. But I am ſtill to ſeek, and emand what advantage accrues to their cauſe, or diſadvantage to ours by this obſervation?
23. But then thirdly they adde, that this Church in the City was governed in the Apoſtles dayes by the common councell of Presbyters or Biſhops.
24. This indeed were worth their diligent obſerving, if it could be deſcried, and would abundantly recompence them for the no-profit their two former obſervations brought them in, if it could be obtained by all their diligence. But this being the foreign, the onelyonly thing in queſtion betwixt us, whether the Church in each City was in the Apoſtles dayes governed by the common councell of Presbyters or Biſhops, or by one ſingle Biſhop, called ſometimes foreign Elder (as that ſignifies ſimply a Governour, not with reſtriction, a member of a College of Governours) this I ſay being the onelyonly queſtion in debate betweene us, it muſt not be any farther yeilded to them, than their proofes and evidences will enforce it; And theſe of what virtue they are, muſt now appeare 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 foreign be ſuppoſed to be ordeined, that certainly will ſatisfie the importunity of that Text, and the mention of foreign Elders in the plurall, viz. foure Elders in thoſe ſo many Churches. And if becauſe foreign 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 foreign, 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 onelyonly 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 onelyonly to that of Epheſus, foreign, 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 tis expreſly ſaid Act. 19. 21. that after the two yeares and three moneths ſpent at Epheſus, foreign, he ſtaid and ſpent ſome time in Aſia, And accordingly v. 26. Demetrius truely ſaith, that not onelyonly 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 onelyonly 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 onelyonly 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 Tim…thy is by Euſebius ſtyled foreign, 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 foreign, Primate of all Aſia, ſo Ignatius in Tra…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 …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*Ana…letum & Cle…entem Petri M…istics facit Ignatius in Epiſtola ad Trollenſes. Wal. Me p. 222. 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*Or. ad Aſiat. Civ. de concord. Ariſtides ſaith of Epheſus, that it was foreign, the common magazine or ſtore-houſe of Aſia, foreign, 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, Eccl. Hiſt l. 4. c. 23.that the Epiſtle of Antonius …ius concerning the Christians, which was to be communicated to all Aſia, foreign, 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 onelyonly 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. foreign. 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 foreign 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, 'tis 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, 'tis onelyonly 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 Laodicaeā.
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 onelyonly 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 indofini…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 Epheſia…s having ſix examples of the word Church in the ſingular, each ſignifying evidently the univerſall Church, I might very well be allowed to diſcerne the word Church in the ſingular, without any addition of Epheſus or the like, which reſtraines it in all the examples there produced, to be appliable to a farre larger body, than the Church of one City, and conſequently be quit from all obligation of making the Elders of the Church, Act. 20. 17. the Elders of the one City of Epheſus.
45. There is little doubt I ſuppoſe but the Church of the whole World, conſiſting of many Churches, as the parts thereof, may be, and is in Scripture called the Church in the ſingular, and ſo certainly may the Church of a Nation or a Province, eſpecially if it be united together under one Primate or Metropolitane, as it is certaine the Churches and Cities neer Epheſus, nay over all Aſia were, according to the plaine words of St. Chryſoſtome, who when*foreign. Anon. ap. Phot. num. 254. others affirme of Timothy that he was by Paul ordained Biſhop of the Metropolis of Ephe…us, expreſſeth the ſame thing thus, foreign, It is manifeſt that Timothy had a Church committed to him, or indeed an intire Nation, that of Aſia. The like is ordinarily obſervable of Crete, a whole Iſland with an hundred Cities in it (in each of which Titus was appointed to ordeine a Biſhop or Elder) which yet is ſtyled in the ſubſcription of the Epiſtle to Titus, foreign, the Church of Crete, and the ſubſcription never queſtioned upon that ſcore by any, that it ſpake improperly herein.
46. And conſequently there can be no harſhneſſe in this interpretation, Paul ſent to Epheſus and call'd the Elders of the Church to come to him to Miletus, and in his Oration addreſt to them called them Biſhop of the flock and of the Church of God, meaning them ſingular praefects of ſeverall Cities of the Church of Aſia, eſpecially of thoſe which were neereſt Epheſus, the chiefe Metropolis of the whole Nation.
47. And ſo much in anſwer to that Objection, in defence of their argument from the Elders of Epheſus, as they call them.
48. Another proofe of the ſame is there added Pag. 85. Thus, The Syriack tranſlation reads it, he ſent to Epheſus, and called the Elders of the Church of Epheſus, ſo Hierome, Presbyteros Eccleſiae Epheſinae, ſo concilium Aquiſgranenſe.
49. What authority St Hierome's teſtimony is to carry with us in this matter, hath been elſewhere largely ſhewed, and we may hereafter have farther occaſion to declare it, and our reaſons of it. At the preſent it is willingly confeſt that St. Hierome on Tit. 1. doth indeavour to prove that in Scripture, Biſhop and Presbyter is the ſame, and from him Iſidore Hispalenſis de officiis Eccl. l. 2. hath the ſame, and both have according to that prolepſis changed the words of the Text in the Acts, and inſtead of what there we reade, ſent to Epheſus and called the Elders of the Church, they read, ſent to Epheſus and called the Elders of the ſame Church, expreſſing themſelves to meane of the Church of Epheſus. And the councell of Aken (Aquiſgranenſe) having tranſcribed nine Chapters from Iſidore verbatim, conſequently doe the like. So that the authority of Iſidore and that councell being as great as St. Hierome can make it, from whom evidently it proceeds, may yet be allowed to yeild to the farre greater authority of Polycarp's auditor Irenaeus, who hath ſufficiently cleared it to the contrary.
50. As for the Syriack tanſlation, it is not here recited exactly accordingly to the truth, For in that, thus the words lie: foreign And from Miletus he ſent and called for the Elders of the Church of Epheſus, where is but one mention of Epheſus, not two, as is here ſuggeſted from the tranſlation, that it reades, he ſent to Epheſus and called the Elders of the Church of Epheſus. The ſhort of it is, Epheſus being but once named in that verſe, the Greeke placeth it in the begining foreign, from Miletus he ſent to Epheſus, and this being the Originall muſt certainly over-rule all tranſlations, and accordingly all tranſlations but one to read it, onelyonly the Syriack hath miſ-placed the word Epheſus, put it in the later part of the period, quite againſt all Syntaxis, and for doing ſo, are here cited, and their teſtimony made uſe of to aſſiſt Presbytery, when the manifeſt truth in the Originall, and by all other tranſlations acknowledged, would not allow them any the leaſt advantage.
51. After they had produced theſe two arguments, to prove that the Church in the City was governed in the Apoſtles days by a Common-councell of Presbyters, the Reader would hardly expect that which now next followes in theſe words.
From all this we gather, that the Aſian Angels were not Di… ceſan Biſhops, but congregationall Presbyters, ſeated each of them in one Church, not any of them in more than one.
52. This concluſion, as the words lie, conſiſts of two parts, 1. That each of theſe Aſian Angels, under the title of Congregationall Presbyters, was ſeated in one Church▪ This, if it were meant, as the words ſound, were the granting to us all that we contend, and would hardly be reconciled with the third obſervation, that the Church in the City was governed by the common councell of Presbyters; For ſure each of thoſe Presbyters is not a common councell; But I rather believe they have not ſo ſoone diſclaimed their praemiſſes, and therefore that it is more reaſonable to interpret their words by their principles, than their meaning by their words, and ſo that by congregationall Presbyters they meant ſo many Colleges of ſuch Presbyters, ſeated each of them, i. e. each of thoſe Colleges in one Church; And if that be their concluſion, I muſt acknowledge it to accord perfectly with their praemiſſes, which being already anſwered, there remaines no force in the concluſion.
53. And for the ſecond part, that not any of them was ſeated in more than one, underſtanding it againe as the words ſound, it is no way contrary to our pretenſions, for we doe not thinke that the Angel of Epheſus was ſeated in Smyrna, or in any Church but that of Epheſios, and the territory thereof; and although as that was a Metropolis, other Cities were under it, and ſo other Biſhops ſubordinate to the Biſhop of Epheſus, yet was not any other City the Seat of that Metropolitane, but onelyonly Epheſus, whereof he takes his denomination, as although Rocheſter be under the Metropolis of Canterbury, yet the Archbiſhop of Canterbury is not ſeated at Rocheſter, but ſome other Biſhop affixt to that City and Dioceſe. As for any other meaning of it, proportionable to that which we were faine to affixe to the former, I confeſſe my ſelfe ignorant what it can tend to, For it is as if they ſhould ſay, not any councell of Presbyters was ſeated in more Churches than one. Which is as if they ſhould ſay, no one body is in ſeverall places. And I know no Prelatiſt that either directly or by conſequence hath affirmed it is.
54. What remaines in the laſt Paragraph of this Chapter, is onelyonly to ſtate the Queſtion betwixt us, which is all the while no more but this, whether Tertullian and Irenaeus that call Polycarpe and Oneſymus Biſhop of Smyrna and Epheſus, meane Biſhops, foreign in a peculiar ſenſe, or in a generall phraſe, as all Presbyters are called Biſhops. And this I acknowledge to be the onelyonly queſtion between us, and if Biſhops doe ſignifie Biſhops, I cannot doubt but the cauſe is by them adjudged on our ſide; And why it ſhould not, they have, to conclude, onelyonly this offer of argument, that Biſhops and Presbyters had all one name in the Apoſtles dayes, and long after in Irenaeus's time.
55. I am truly weary of the length of this Chapter, and cannot but by conſent have ſome compaſſion on the Reader, and therefore I ſhall bring the matter to this ſhort iſſue. This reaſon of theirs is no reaſon, unleſſe the word Biſhop, both in the Apoſtles dayes and long after Irenaeus's time, ſignified a Presbyter in our moderne notion; For if both foreign and foreign Biſhop and Elder ſignified Biſhop in our notion, this againe gives the cauſe to us from them. And upon theſe termes I am content to leave it, if ever they finde in Irenaeus that Epiſcopus ſignifies a Presbyter in our moderne notion, I will confeſſe them Conquerours, but this they have not offered here to doe, and I have ſome moderate aſſurance they never will.
And ſo much for that Chapter.