Vindication of the Dissertations Concerning Episcopacy, Chapter 2 – Chapter 3
CHAP. II.
Of the equivalence of the words Biſhop and Elder in the New Teſtament.
Section I.
Foure ſorts of equivalence of theſe words propoſed.
THe next place where I find my ſelfe call'd forth, is about the midſt of their ſeventh Chapter, toward the bottom of pag. 92. OnelyOnly for the concluſion of this Diſcourſe, &c. For although in the former part of that Chapter they undertake to vindicate their chiefe proofes of Scripture, Act. 20. 17, 28. Phil. 1. 1. 1 Tim. 3. 1 Pet. 5. and to make replies to the Anſwers given to them, and although it is moſt certaine that in the Diſſertations every of thoſe places are anſwered, and ſhew'd to be fully reconcileable with our praetenſions for Praelacy, yet they have not pleaſed to take any notice of what is there ſaid, which if they had done, I might, without inſolence, undertake to ſhew, that it had prevented all appearance of force in any of their Replies; And therefore being by this meanes perfectly freed from all obligation to view any Paragraph of that former part of the Chapter, and having already ſaid ſomewhat to the chiefe of their places, Act. 20. and fore-ſeeing a fit opportunity for the reſt, I ſhall for mine own, and the Readers eaſe, punctually expect and obey the ſummons, appeare when I am call'd before them, but no ſooner, avert their charge, and not multiply debates above what is neceſſary.
Thus then they begin, that there is a Doctor, a high Praelatiſt, &c. That in a late Booke of his hath undertaken to make out theſe two great Paradoxes, 1. That whereſoever the word Biſhop is uſed in the New Teſtament, it is to be taken in a praelaticall ſenſe. 2. That whereſoever the word Presbyter is uſed in the New Teſtament, it is to be underſtood, not of a mere Presbyter, but of a Biſhop properly ſo called. And whereas we ſay that the Scripture-Biſhop is nothing elſe but a Presbyter, and that there was no Biſhops diſtinct from Presbyters in the Apoſtles dayes, this Author on the contrary ſaith, that the Scripture-Preſbyter is a true Biſhop, and that there were no ſingle and meere Preſbyters in the Apoſtles dayes. For our parts we do not thinke it neceſſary to take a particular ſurvey of all that is ſaid in juſtification of theſe Paradoxes, onelyonly we deſire it may be conſidered.
There is ſo much of the ſenſe of ſome paſſages in the Diſſertations ſet downe in theſe words, that I am forced to believe, that I am the Author here charged for theſe two Paradoxes. That they are ſo ſtyled by thoſe who are contrary minded, and who have aſſumed a power, which, if either of theſe propoſitions be true, they muſt be obliged to part with, I cannot thinke ſtrange; And if I ſhould ſtyle their aſſertions as perfectly Paradox (i.e. as contrary to all the antients ſenſe or Doctrine in this matter) when they ſay that the Scripture-Biſhop is nothing elſe but a Preſbyter, &c. this were certainly an introduction fit to be confronted to theirs, as being equally argumentative. But becauſe this verball eloquence hath little of efficacy in it, and will never be a meanes of evincing the truth of our pretenſions, by affirming the contrary to be errours or Paradoxes, and becauſe what is affixt to me, is not intirely my ſenſe, though it recite it in ſome part, and approach neere to it, I ſhall here begin with a briefe relation of what is affirmed by the Diſſertations in this matter, and then inquire what is here produced to invalidate it.
Diſſert. 4. c. 6. the method leading to the conſideration of the word [Biſhop] and [Elder] in the Scripture, the firſt thing taken notice of was the foreign or equivalence of theſe words in the opinion of many. To which purpoſe Theodoret, Chryſoſtome, Oecumenius, and St Hierome are cited, as favourers of this opinion, but this with ſome difference of the one from the other. And for the diſtinct ſtating of the Queſtion, foure ſenſes were ſet downe, wherein it was poſſible that this equivalence of the words might be underſtood. 1. That both Biſhop and Elder ſhould ſignifie one and the ſame, viz. a Biſhop in our moderne notion. 2. That both ſhould ſignifie the ſame thing, viz. a Presbyter. 3. That both of them ſhould ſignifie promiſcuouſly, ſometimes a Biſhop, ſometimes a Preſbyter, i. e. that the word foreign ſhould ſometime ſignifie a Biſhop, ſometime a Preſbyter, and in like manner foreign ſignifie ſometime a Biſhop, ſometime a Preſbyter. 4. That the word Biſhop ſhould alwayes ſignifie a ſingular Biſhop, and the word Elder ſometimes a Biſhop, and ſometimes a Preſbyter.
Of theſe foure ſenſes of the equivalence of theſe words, it was ſure no error to conclude, that they were not all of them true, each being excluſive of the other three; and although ſome of the antients might be brought in favour to one, more than to the other, yet this was eminently obſervable, that thoſe that favoured that species, which is moſt for the Presbyterians intereſt to be accepted, doe yet aſſert the cauſe of the Prelatiſts as confidently as any. So Theodoret, who ſeemes moſt to aſſert the ſecond ſpecies, doth yet propugne the foreign, the ſuperiour dignity of Biſhops above Presbyters, and affirmes*foreign, &c. Theo. in 1 Tim. 3. 1. Thoſe who were in his time called Biſhops (the Singular praefects of Cities) to have been ſtyled Apoſtles in the Scripture-times, and that Epaphroditus was called ſo by St. Paul, as being Biſhop of the Philippians, and ſo ſaith he, Titus was Apoſtle of the Cretanes, and Timothy of the Aſiaticks.
So when Chryſoſtome, and Theophylact, and Oecumenius approve of the third ſpecies, In Phil. 1. and Act. 20. and 1 Pet. 5. 1.and affirmes Biſhops to be called Presbyters (and Deacons alſo) and on the contrary Presbyters to be called Biſhops, yet of each of them it is notorious, that they aſſerted the ſuperiority of Biſhops over Presbyters, not onelyonly in their owne, but in the Apoſtles time. And to that purpoſe the conceſſion and teſtimony of Peter Moulin was produced,Epiſt. 1. ad Epiſe. Winton that the moſt famous Biſhops of the antient Church, Chryſoſtome, &c. did not thinke it any diminution to their dignity that the words Biſhop and Elder were at firſt conceived to be uſed in the ſame ſenſe, which obſervation being premiſed, and thereby the Prelatists pretenſions competently ſecured, which ſoever of thoſe ſenſes ſhould be accepted, ſo long as they that were authors of the aſſertions be permitted to give their owne interpretation of them; It was then, I thought, perfectly ſeaſonable and ſafe to diſcuſſe the queſtion freely, and to ſet downe what to me appeared moſt probable, without prejudice to any other diſſenter, and upon thoſe termes, and not otherwiſe, theſe two propoſitions were offered to farther conſideration of learned men.
1. That the word foreign in Scripture conſtantly ſignifie a ſingular Biſhop.
2. That the word foreign either conſtantly ſignifies a Biſhop alſo, or elſe commonly a Biſhop, and ſometime, but rarely, a Presbyter.
Theſe are ſomewhat different from the two paradoxes affixt to me, And in theſe termes I ſhall now reſume them againe, and cleare them to be no paradoxes. And begin firſt with the former of them, concerning the word foreign Biſhop. And this is already done, 1. By conſidering the originall notation, and uſe in the Old Teſtament, of the word foreign, then by going over every place in the New Teſtament, where the word Biſhop is uſed.
Section II.
Of the word foreign.
THe word foreign naturally ſignifying an overſeer, and uſed by Ariſtides for foreign the Governour, the ſame that Juſtinian calls foreign, the Ruler of Provinces and Metropoles, and by Cicero ad Articum rendred ſpeculator & cuſtos, one that lookes to, and guards a Province (and ſo fitly ſtyled Angel, who's generally deemed to have thoſe two Offices, and is in the Scripture called an eye, and vulgarly a guardian) doth in the Greeke of the Old Teſtament ſometime render the Hebrew foreign, which is common to God, Lord, Angel, and generally denotes Dominion; ſometimes foreign a Praefect or Commiſſary, intruſted with the adminiſtration of ſome affaire, whether in army, as a Commander, Numb. 31. 14. in Mechanicall working, as a Maſter-workeman, 2 Chron. 34. 12. 17. in a City, a Ruler or Prince, Nehem. 11. 9. peculiarly the chiefe of the Prieſts v. 10 in the Miniſtery of the Temple as Eleazar (the Ruler of the Levites) Num. 4. 16. and laſtly in the Houſe of the Lord, the Ruler ſet over that, 2 Kin. 11. 18. And the reſult of all this is, that it generally ſignifies an office of charge and dignity and power and ſuperiority over others, all one with foreign, which are all uſed to render the ſame word that foreign doth, and ſo is moſt fitly qualified to ſignifie the like, viz. a praefecture in the Chriſtian Church under the New Teſtament.
Accordingly there we finde it applied, 1. to Chriſt himſelfe, the Biſhop of our ſoules, who though he miniſtred to his Diſciples, yet owned the title of Lord and Maſter, as that which from them belonged to him, Joh. 13. 13. Secondly, to the Apoſtles Act. 1. 20. And for all other places where it is uſed, it is evidently capable of a ſenſe very agreeable to theſe premiſſes, being never once uſed in the New Teſtament, but where it will be very commodious to render it Biſhop in our moderne notion of the word for a ſingular prefect in each Church, not a collegue in a Presbytery.
This is at large ſhew'd by a ſurvey of every of thoſe places; Firſt, that of Act. 20. 28. where the Apoſtle takes leave, and exhorts the Biſhops ſet over the flock by the Holy Ghoſt: They are there bid to feed the Church of God, i.e. the Chriſtians of the ſeverall Cities of Aſia, or neer about Epheſus, as was in the laſt Chapter evidenced out of Irenaeus, auditor to Polycarpe made Biſhop of Smyrna by St. John, and therefore may well be reſolved to be the ſingular Biſhops of thoſe Cities, and not onelyonly of the one City of Epheſus, as was largely ſhewed in the laſt Chapter.
The ſecond place is that of Phil. 1. 1. where after the mention of all the Saints in Chriſt Jeſus which are at Philippi, is added, with the Biſhops and Deacons; where although ſome of the Greeke Commentators, which at the ſame time aſſert Epiſcopacy, do for that very reaſon, becauſe there could not be many Biſhops in one City, underſtand that place of Presbyters in our moderne notion, and adde that the words*foreign, Theophyl. in Phil. 1. 1. Biſhop and Presbyter, yea and Deacon too, were not as yet diſtinct, but promiſcuouſly uſed, the one for the other; here the word Biſhops for Presbyters, as elſewhere the Presbytery is uſed for Biſhops, 1 Tim. 4. 4. adding this reaſon*foreign., becauſe Presbyters ordeined not a Biſhop; And although many expedients were ready at hand to keepe the Text from being uſefull to the Presbyterians, in caſe it were granted that by Biſhops the Presbyters were meant, as that Epaphroditus their preſent Biſhop (as is acknowledged by Theodoret, Chryſoſtome and Theophylact, who are moſt favourable to that interpretation) was with St. Paul at the writing that Epiſtle, c. 4. 18. yet I have the authority of Epiphanius to affirme, that foreign there ſignifies peculiarly Biſhops, and I doubt not but it may doe ſo, referring it to all the Biſhops of the ſeverall Cities belonging to that Metropolis.
For ſuch was Philippi, both as the firſt-fruits of all Macedonia, firſt converted to the Faith, 2 Act. 16. 9. & foreign, a prime City of that Province of Macedon, v. 12. of it ſelfe, before it's converſion, and ſo ſaith*Epiſt. 247. Photius diſtinctly, foreign, and accordingly Polycarps Epiſtle to them is inſcribed foreign to the whole province that belongs to Philippi; In which there being diverſe Cities, and Biſhops in them, the Epiſtle to St. Paul is to be conceived written to them all, (as the Epiſtle to the Corinthians appeares to have been written to the Saints of all Achaia) and being inſcribed to Philippi, was to be communicated to thoſe others, as the Epistle to the Coloſſians was to be communicated to the Laodicaeans, Col. 4. 16. and that which the Laodicaeans had received (whether, as Tertullian ſeemes to believe, that to the Epheſians, or any other) in like manner to be communicated to the Coloſſians, and the Epiſtle of the Church of Jeruſalem to the Church of Antioch did belong and was communicated to all the Churches of Syria and Cilicia. Act. 16. 4.
And then all that the immediate ſubjoyning of the Deacons in that place, will conclude, is onelyonly this (which is farre from yeilding the Presbyterians any profit) that as *foreign. l. 1. Contr. Aër.Epiphanius ſaith, foreign, the Churches being but newly planted, there were not Presbyters as yet conſtituted among them, onelyonly a Biſhop with one Deacon or more in each City, in like manner as it was at Jeruſalem Act. 6. where after James's aſſumption to the Biſhoprick, which the Eccleſiaſticall writers tell us of, the ſeven Deacons are ſoone inſtituted, no Presbyters being created in the middle, betwixt the Biſhop and them, that either Scripture or antient Record informe us of.
And †Clem. Rom. Ep. ad Corinth.Clemens, St. Pauls fellow Labourer, mentions it as the generall practice, that the Apoſtles preaching through Regions and Cities conſtituted their firſt fruits into Biſhops and Deacons of thoſe which ſhould come in to the faith.
Thus farre is this from being a forced interpretation being perfectly regular, and conformable to what we read of thoſe times, out of the beſt and antienteſt Records of them; And if in any circumſtance we ſhould be lyable to miſtake, yet for the maine, the Reader will hardly thinke it poſſible, when he remembers this very Church of the Philippians to be one of thoſe expreſſely named by Tertullian, among whom in his time, Apostolorum Cathedrae ſuis adhuc locis praeſidebantur, The Chaires of the Apoſtles were yet extant praeſiding in their due places, which concludes ſome Biſhop or ſingular praefect to have ſucceeded the Apoſtles in this Church (as in thoſe other, Theſſalonica, &c.) and by Theodoret, whoſe authority is moſt uſed againſt us in this matter, to prove that the Biſhops were Presbyters here, Epaphroditus is expreſly affirmed to be that Biſhop.
The next place is that of 1 Tim. 3. 1, 2. If any man deſire the Office of a Biſhop he coveteth a good worke: A Biſhop therefore muſt be blameleſſe—where there is no reaſon of doubting, but the Biſhop is the ſingular praefect or Governour of the Church; For the onelyonly appearance of the contrary being againe (as in that to the Philippians) the immediate ſubjoyning of Deacons and their qualifications, v. 8. that preſently vaniſheth, if againe we remember the obſervation of Epiphanius, which he had out of the moſt antient Records, and was found exactly conformable to the expreſſe words of Clemens Romanus, the contemporary of the Apoſtles, that at the beginning of the Church foreign, before the government was compleate in all the Offices, the Apoſtles and Apoſtolicall perſons placed in the Church by them, ſuch as Timothy to whom here he gives the directions, created no more but a Biſhop and Deacon (one or more) in each Church, the preſent ſtate of things neither requiring nor being well capable of any more, in reſpect of the paucity of the Chriſtians to be governed or inſtructed, and of thoſe which were fit to be made Presbyters.
And although Theodoret againe (with ſome few others) interpret the place of Presbyters, yet 'tis as evident, he doth it not to the diſadvantage of Biſhops, adding in the ſame place, that the Biſhops eſpecially ſhould obſerve theſe Lawes foreign, as thoſe which had atteined to a greater honour.
Meanewhile S. Chryſoſtome interprets it diſtinctly of*foreign. Biſhops, as I have done, and in that notion of Biſhops which ſevers them from Preſbyters, ſuch as governe in each City, and addeth the qualifications to be ſuch, as being ſpoken of Biſhops, foreign, doe agree to Presbyters alſo. And accordingly Theophylact interprets it of the foreign and foreign, the Preſident and Ruler, without any mention of Presbyters.
There remaines but one place, and that of the very ſame nature with this laſt, and muſt certainly be regulated by it, Tit. 1. 7. For a Biſhop muſt be blameleſſe, as the ſteward of God (anſwerable to that notion of the word Biſhop in the Old Teſtament for the Ruler ſet over the Houſe of the Lord, 2 Kin. 11. 18. i. e. the Steward, to whom the Keyes of the Houſe were committed, Iſa. 22. 22.) That this is the ſingular Biſhop in every City, ſignified before v. 5. by the Elders, which Titus was left in Crete to conſtitute, is the joynt affirmation of St. Chryſoſtome, Theophylact and Oecumenius on thoſe words of v. 5. Elders in every City, foreign, &c. By Elders he there meanes Biſhops, as in the Epiſtle to Timothy, appointing them to be conſtituted in every …ity, for he would not have the whole Iſland adminiſtred by one, but that every …ity ſhould have it's proper Paſtor (or Biſhop) that ſo the labour might be the lighter, and the care more exact. In Crete there were certainly many Cities, Euſebius mentions an hundred, of all which,*L. 3. c. 4. ſaith he, Titus was made Biſhop by St. Paul, that under him, ſaith †Arg. Ep. ad Tit. In tit. 1 Hom 1.Theodoret, he might ordeine Biſhops: to which*foreign, Arg. Ep. Chryſoſtome and Theophylact adde foreign, that he might have power to judge or cenſure thoſe Biſhops, as a Metropolitan and Prima…e over them.
There is now no other place wherein the word Biſhop is uſed, and by this briefe view of theſe, I hope the firſt propoſition is competently reſcued from meriting the cenſure of Paradox, whether that ſignifie novell or ſtrange; this being ſo conformable both to the nature and uſe of the word, to the tradition of the antient Church, and the importance of each Scripture, where it is uſed, that Biſhop ſhould ſignifie foreign, the ſingular Paſtor or Governour in each City or Church.
Section III.
Of the word foreign Elder.
NOw to the ſecond propoſition, which pretended not to ſo much poſitiveneſſe, but is ſet down in a greater latitude of defining, that the word foreign either conſtantly ſignifies a Biſhop alſo, or elſe commonly a Biſhop, though ſometimes, but moſt rarely a Presbyter. Of this I ſhall now need to praemiſe but theſe few things.
Firſt, that the nature of the word foreign commonly rendred foreign Elder in the Old Teſtament, doth denote moſt properly, and ſignifie moſt conſtantly (as in all Languages the word is found vulgarly to doe) a Ruler or Governour. This is ſo largely deduced and demonſtrated in the Annotation on Act. 11. 30. that I ſhall not indeavour farther to manifeſt it.
Secondly, that as in ſome places of the New Teſtament the word is neceſſarily to be underſtood of Biſhops, ſo in every other place it is very fitly capable of that interpretation; This is againe ſo particularly evidenced to the Latine Reader, Diſſ. 4. c. 19, 20, 21, 22. and to the Engliſh Reader Annot. on Act. 11. b. and 14. a. that I cannot deeme it reaſonable to tire my ſelfe farther with tranſcribing it.
Thirdly, that if any one or more places ſhall be thought by any man to belong to Presbyters in our moderne ſenſe, as that of Jam 5. 14. or the like, I ſhall onelyonly deſire, that he will bring any convincing proofe or authentick Teſtimony, that in that or thoſe places it ſo ſignifies, and I ſhall moſt willingly grant it to him, and be ſo farre from thinking it, in the leaſt degree, diſadvantagious to our pretenſions, that I ſhall not doubt to evidence it a demonſtrative argument to confirm them, but ſhall not need to inſiſt on that, till ſuch proofe be offered.
Fourthly, that by this it is already moſt evident, that my aſſertion was not truely cited p. 92. in theſe words, that whereſoever the word Presbyter is uſed in the New Teſtament, it is to be underſtood not of a meere Presbyter, but of a Biſhop properly ſo called; Certainly neither my words nor ſenſe extended to the whereſoever—and, it is to be—being onelyonly in a disjunctive forme, either conſtantly ſo, or ſometimes but rarely otherwiſe.
Fifthly, that if I were not miſreported, and the Paradox were as high and as poſitive, as it is repreſented, yet I conceive not the reaſon why they that have with great confidence affirmed that both Biſhops and Elders do alway ſignifie in Scripture their Presbyters and no more, (for if either of thoſe words do but once ſignifie a Biſhop, their Jus Divinum, and whole cauſe falls to the ground irrecoverably) ſhould be ſo much at leiſure from excuſing themſelves, to accuſe that for a Paradox in others, which is not imaginable to be more an extreme on one ſide, then theirs is on the other▪
Laſtly, that if they doe not thinke it neceſſary to take a particular ſurvey of all that is ſaid in juſtification of theſe (which they thus pleaſe to ſtyle) Paradoxes, which is in effect, as if they ſhould profeſſe to deny and declaime againſt the concluſion, without attempting to ſatisfie any reaſon, by which it is inferr'd; It might be as juſt in me to tender them anſwers of the ſame making, and ſo to ſuperſede any farther diſpute in this matter.
But I ſhall not imitate their method, but rather prepare to attend them in it, and having thus farre ſerved them, by undertaking the taske which was due to them, in giving the Reader a briefe view of the grounds of my Aſſertions, which were too long for them to take notice of, I ſhall now trace their ſteps, and follow them which way ſoever they lead.
Section IV.
Of Reverence to Antiquity, and the Interpretations of the Antients. Of Praelatiſts diſagreement among themſelves.
FIrſt then, ſay they, we deſire it may be conſidered, that theſe aſſertions are contrary to antiquity, which yet notwithſtanding our Brethren doe ſo highly magnifie and boaſt of it in this controverſy, and for receding from which, as they ſay we do, they doe moſt deeply charge us.
That theſe Aſſertions, as farre as they are owned by me, and are Aſſertions, are ſo diſtant from being contrary to antiquity, that they are founded in the Records of the moſt antient reverend authority, hath appeared moſt plainly by what hath now been ſaid, and had before been laid, as the ground of the interpretations, in the fourth Diſſert. if they, which gathered the concluſion from thence, would have vouchſafed to take notice of the praemiſſes.
The utmoſt that can be with truth pretended, is, that ſome of the Texts, which we have inſiſted on here, and ſo likewiſe ſome of thoſe where foreign Elders are mentioned, are not by all the antients interpreted juſt in that manner, as I thinke they may ſafely and moſt probably be interpreted, and ſo as they will beſt accord with the opinions which thoſe very antients appeared to have concerning the Originall of Epiſcopacy.
In this I hope I have not offended againſt the antient Church, or if I had, as I ſhould have expected other accuſers, than thoſe I have, ſo ſhould I waite for no other judge but my ſelfe, and immediately ſubmit to any penance for it.
But they which truely reverence antiquity, diſcerne alſo wherein this Reverence is terminated, not in adhering to every interpretation of each Text of Scripture given by any antient Commentator or Interpreter, for truely that is abſolutely impoſſible, ſeverall of them being known in interpreting of Texts very frequently to differ one from the other; This can be no newes to any man, who hath but lightly viewed them, or but occaſionally conſulted Tirinus, or ſuch like later Commentators, who have collected the Interpretations of the Antients, and marſhalled their names, and told us how many have been for one, how many for another ſenſe of ſuch a Text.
And in affaires of this nature, wherein they have neither taught Doctrines, nor teſtified Traditions, but onelyonly expreſt their ſingle opinions, or conjectures of an Apoſtles meaning in words capable of more ſenſes than one, I know no Praelatiſt that ever denyed later Writers liberty to recede from one, and adhere to ſome other of the antients, or if more convincing reaſons appeared for any freſh interpretation, never given before, the like liberty hath been allowed; And indeed if it were not ſo, our ſtudying of the Originalls, inquiry into the nature of words and phraſes, obſervation of cuſtomes among the antients, and all wherein learned men differ from unlearned, conſideration of the context and argument, foreign as well as foreign of each difficult place, and all the other skills and advantages of a good Interpreter would all be unuſefull firſt, and then dangerous, would tempt one oit to recede from ſome former Writers, to forſake the roade and method (ſo ordinary) of tranſcribing other mens labours, and by inciting him to ſay any thing which had not oft been ſaid before, (which if it have, why doth he againe trouble himſelf and others to repeat it) would infallibly involve him under the burthen and guilt that is here laid on me, of being contrary to Antiquity.
But I am unwilling to diſcourage them from any ſort or degree of reverence to antiquity, and on condition they will be fairely tried by it in any notion by which they can imagine to define that Reverence, or the word Antiquity, I will forgoe all my novell interpretations, and ſay no one word which the Antients have not diſtinctly ſaid before me, and refer the whole fate of the cauſe to this judicature.
Their ſecond conſideration is, that they are contrary to all that have ever written in defence of Epiſcopacy, from whence they conclude that till their brethren (i. e. we Praelatiſts) agree among themſelves, they need not spend time to anſwer the private Opinions of one Doctor.
To this I anſwer, that it hath alwayes been deemed lawfull to any man, which hath undertaken the defence of a Chriſtian cauſe, aſſerted conſtantly by the Church, to chooſe his arguments (as combatants do their weapons) ſuch as he thinkes are fitteſt for his managery, and will moſt probably (in his opinion) convince the gainſayers; No obligation lying upon him by the Lawes of theſe agones, to uſe thoſe arguments (and no other, nor otherwiſe improved) which all other writers of that ſide have done before him; For if this were the manner of the foreign the legail combate, to what end ſhould any ſecond writing on the ſame ſubject ever appeare to the World? That which had been formerly ſaid, needed not to be tranſcribed and ſaid againe, but either the booke might be Re-printed or tranſlated into a language more intelligible (as I have here been fame oft to doe) And though I might truly ſay, that for thoſe more minute conſiderations or conjectures, wherein this Doctor differs from ſome others, who have written before him (as to the manner of interpreting ſome few Texts) he hath the ſuffrages of many the learnedſt men of this Church at this day (and as farre as he knowes, of all that imbrace the ſame cauſe with him) yet I doe not thinke it neceſſary to prove my agreement with others of my brethren by this onelyonly medium; It being certaine that they who believe the ſame concluſion upon ſeverall mediums or wayes of inferring it, are in that, and may be in all other concluſions at perfect accord and unity among themſelves.
All that I can conclude from this and the former conſideration (the double charge laid on me of contrariety to antiquity, and other aſſerters of Epiſcopacy) is onelyonly this, that the authors of them are ill pleaſed, that I uſe any other arguments, or anſwers but what they were willing to aſſigne me: otherwiſe if there had been leſſe, not more truth, or evidence in my way of defending the cauſe, they would have had the greater advantage againſt me, and I doubt not, have been, in the ſpace of three yeares, at leiſure to have obſerved it.
Section V.
Inconveniencies objected, and anſwer'd. Of more Biſhops in one City, No Preſbyters in the Apoſtles dayes. The no Divine right of the Order of Preſbyters.
BUt they are, in the third place, pleaſed to object ſome inconveniences which the defending of theſe paradoxes muſt neceſſarily bring upon me; And to theſe I ſhall more diligently attend.
Firſt, ſay they, he that will defend theſe Paradoxes muſt of neceſſity be forced to grant that there were more Biſhops than one in a City in the Apoſtles dayes, which is to betray the cauſe of Epiſcopacy, and to bring downe a Biſhop to the ranke of a Presbyter.
To this I reply by abſolute denying of this conſequence (for ſuppoſing the Scripture-Biſhop to be alwayes a Biſhop, and ſo the Scripture Elder alſo, how can it follow from thence that there are more ſuch Biſhops in any one City?) Tis moſt evident that this is no way inferr'd upon either, or both of my aſſertions, nor is here one word added to prove it is, to which I might accommodate any anſwer. Tis on the contrary moſt manifeſt, that whenſoever I find mention of Biſhops or Elders in the plurall, as Act. 20. Phil. 1. &c. I interpret them of the Biſhops of Aſia, and the Biſhops of Macedonia, Biſhops of Judaea, &c. (and render my reaſons of doing ſo) and conſequently affirme them to be the Biſhops of divers (ſure that is not of one) Cities.
The ſecond inconvenience is, that I muſt be forced to grant that there were no Biſhops over Presbyters in the Apoſtles days, for if there were no Presbyters, there could be no Biſhops over Presbyters.
Here is an evident miſtake, for I no where ſay, that there were no Preſbyters in the Apoſtles dayes, but onelyonly that in the Apoſtles writings the word [Biſhops] alwayes ſignifies Biſhops, and the word [Elders] either never, or but rarely, Presbyters; Now beſides that it is poſſible for thoſe to be in the time of the Apoſtles writing, which yet for want of occaſion are not mentioned in thoſe writings (and I that love not negative arguments à teſtimonio, ſhould never have thought fit to conclude there were no Preſbyters within the time wherein the ſeverall Bookes of Scripture were written, upon that one argument, becauſe I could not find them mentioned there) beſides this, I ſay, Tis certaine that the Apostles times are ſomewhat a larger period than the time of the Apoſtles writings, and therefore that what is ſpoken onelyonly of the later, was not meant to be extended to the former.
For 1. the Apoſtles continued alive ſome time after writing their Epiſtles, and ſecondly, ſome of the Apoſtles ſurvived others; John, of whom Chriſts will was intimated, that he ſhould tarry, and not die till after the comming of Chriſt, and that Kingdom of his, commenced in the deſtruction of the Jews, did accordingly live till Trajanes time, and by that time I thinke it probable that the number of believers daily increaſing, there were, as the wants of the Church required, Preſbyters ordained in many Churches: And accordingly in the Diſſert. p. 229. when I ſpeak of this matter, I expreſly except S. John, and p. 211. I make uſe of a teſtimony of Clemens Alexandrinus, on purpoſe to conclude that this Apoſtle ordein'd Presbyters in Aſia, after his returne from the Iſland, to which he was baniſhed, foreign, &c. and to the ſame matter I*D'ſſert 4. c. 4. Sect. 4, 5. elſewhere apply that of Ephiphanius, out of the profoundeſt, i.e. antienteſt Records, that as Moſes and Aaron tooke to them firſt the Princes of the people, and at length the Sanhedrim of the ſeventy Elders, ſo the Apoſtles firſt conſtituted Biſhops, and in proceſſe of time Presbyters alſo, when occaſion required, as the Biſhops aſſiſtants, and Councell, and that upon account of this Analogy with the Sanhedrim, they were ſtyled foreign Elders
And Ignatius making mention of Presbyters, as of a middle degree in the Church betwixt Biſhops and Deacons in his, i. e. in Trajan's time, and that in his Epiſtles to ſeverall of thoſe Aſian Churches, Smyrna, Epheſus, Magneſia, Philadelphia, Trallis, I thinke the argument of great validity to conclude, that in that Province that Apoſtle had in his life time inſtituted this middle order. And therefore I that had ſo carefully prevented, was not to be charged with this crime of affirming there were no Preſbyters, or Biſhops over Presbyters (which certainly there were, if there were Presbyters under them) in the Apoſtles dayes.
And third inconvenience they adde, that by conſequence I muſt affirme that Ordo Presbyteratus is not Jure Divino.
But that is no more conſequent to my aſſertion, than it was my aſſertion, that there were no Presbyters in the Apoſtles dayes, and therefore I that am guiltleſſe of the aſſertion, cannot be charged with the conſequents of it; John I know was an Apoſtle, and John, I believe, ordained Presbyters, and thence I doubt not to conclude the Apoſtolicall inſtitution, i.e. in effect, the Divine right of the order of Presbyters, though not of the government of the Church by Presbytery; and ſo I am ſtill cleare from the guilt of that crime which the worſt of Papiſts would abhominate, which they are reſolved I muſt have layen under, if I had queſtioned the Divine Right of Presbyters, though they can more than queſtion the Divine Right of Biſhops, and never have remorſe or compunction, or dread any charge or …entence for it.
Sect. VI.
A firſt confeſſion objected and vindicated. Of the Epheſine Presbyters being all the Praelates of Aſia, Elders, Aldermanni.
AFter theſe inconveniences briefly touched (and almoſt as briefly by me averted) they proceede to take notice in the fourth place, of ſome confeſſions of mine, which the juſtification of my opinion have forced from me. By this method thinking (as at length they ſay) to render Epiſcopacy, that is thus maintained, or elſe my way of maintaining it, odious and contemptible to all ſober, and godly, and moderate Chriſtians, i.e. to all thoſe, who for the attaining of thoſe titles, good opinion, and good words from them, ſhall be invited to contemne, or hate thoſe, whom they are yet pleaſed to call their brethren. And this I confeſſe is the moſt compendious way of confuting that which would not otherwiſe be confuted.
What thoſe confeſſions of mine are, which are like to render my aſſertions ſo odious, I muſt next take a view, and conſider with what juſtice this is ſaid by them.
The firſt is, that the Epheſine. Presbyters, whom Paul ſent for to Miletus, were all the Praelates of Aſia.
To ſay that the Epheſine Presbyters, in their ſenſe of the phraſe, are Praelates of Aſia, were, I confeſſe, a ridiculous, and ſo, if they pleaſe, a contemptible confeſſion, but I have yet been under no ſuch torture from their arguments, as ſhould conſtrain ſuch confeſſion from mee. What I ſay is ſufficiently known to be my free opinion, (and no forced confeſſion, ſuch as the neceſſity of a desperate enterpriſe might extort from me) that the foreign, Elders of the Church, who by ſummons ſent to Epheſus, the chiefe Metropolis of all Aſia (and by that convenient way communicated to other Cities) were aſſembled to Paul at Miletus, Act. 20. 17. were, as Irenaeus aſſures mee, the Biſhops of the other Cities in thoſe parts, and not only of the one City of Epheſus.
What harſhneſſe there can be in this aſſertion, to be rejected as odious at the firſt hearing, I confeſſe I divine not, That thoſe Cities had Biſhops, as well as Epheſus, cannot be ſtrange, or that Paul deſired to ſpeake with them before his finall parting. And that the Biſhops may be called Elders, will be as little ſtrange, if it be but remembred, what is at large ſhewed in the Diſſertations, that the word Elder had in the Old Teſtament denoted dignity and Praefecture in ſingle perſons, as when Eleezer Abraham's Oeconomus, who was ſet over his ſervants, is ſtyled foreign, the Elder of his houſe, and Ruler of all that was his (by Elder and Ruler ſignifying the ſame thing) and ſo the Elders foreign, of the Moabites, Num. 22. 7. are the Princes of Moab, v. 8. and the Elders of Iſrael are the heads, or Praefects of the principall Families of Iſrael, Exod 6. 14. the Rulers of the people c. 16. 22. the Elders of the Tribes, Deut. 31. 28. and all this, and much more, before they were called into a Councell, or Senate, to aſſiſt Moſes, as appeares Num 11. 16.
And proportionable to this hath been the uſe of the word among all Nations, foreign, the Elder alwayes hath the Rule, and all obey him, ſaith*L. 2. Diodorus Siculus, and ſo Seniors] in all languages is a title of honour and dignity.
And peculiarly among us, as when Aethelſtane the halfe King (as he was called) of the Eaſt Angles, was ſaluted by the title of*Vid. Autho… lit. Rames. Sect. 4. and 33. and S. H…n. Spelma…s Gleſſary. p. 28. 29. Aldermannus, i.e. foreign, Elder of all England, and ſo Aethelwod and Aelwin, ſo in King Aelfred's Lawes c. 34. there is mention Regis Aldermanni and Preſbyteri Regis; And accordingly Mat. 20. 25. thoſe words of the Princes of the Nations exerciſing dominion over them, are by the Saxons interpreted Ealdo…men wealdaqthat; hisa ðeodo, Elders have dominion over their Nations, and Luke 9. 22. the Elders and chief of the Prioſts are by them rendred Ealdrum and Ealdormaannum. All taking the word Elder for a title of Dignity and praefecture (and from that notion of it the Pre…bytorians are not obſerved to decline.)
And then finally that the addition of foreign the Church, though in the ſingular, cannot make it unfit for theſe Elders to denote the Biſh…ps of Aſia, or neere Epheſus under that Metroplis, hath been already accounted for at large. And ſo ſtill I hope they, and all godly and moderate brethren need neither hate, nor contemne Epiſcopacy, nor the defenders of it, upon pretenſe of this (ſo farre from incommodious or inconvenient) confeſſion.
Section VII.
A ſecond confeſſion of the Biſhops, Phil. 1. 1. being Biſhops of that whole Province, Philippi a Metropolis, and a Colony.
LIke unto this firſt, is the ſecond which they take notice of, That the Biſhops of Philippi, whom S. Paul ſalutes Ch. 1. were not the Biſhops of that City onelyonly, but of the whole Province, whereas Theophylact ſaith that Philippi was foreign, a little City ſubject to the Metropolis of Theſſalonica.
That the word foreign Biſhops, Phil. 1. 1. denotes the Biſhops of the Cities of Macedonia, which were under this foreign, chiefe City, or Metropolis, as S. Luke calls it, Acts 16. 12. is already evidenced to be no ſtrange or violent (I hope as little odious) confeſſion. I neede not farther repeat, or inlarge on that, but beare in good part, whatſoever fate is decreed by them to attend that Confeſſion.
As for the Objection which is here ſubjoyned, and to which they were directed by Diſſert. 4. c. 10. Sect. 12. they might, if they had been ſo pleaſed, have taken the antidote with the poyſon, obſerved, and tendred to the Reader the anſwer, which in the five following Sections is ſolemnely rendred to it, and confuted that anſwer, if they had diſcernd any infirme part in it.
Firſt then, the anſwer is, that that deſcription of Philippi in the argument prefixt to Theophylact's notes on that Epiſtle, was taken out of an antient Geographer, and belonged to that City, as it was built by Philip, having been formerly called foreign, then foreign: not to the later times, under the Romane Empire, and that it is no new, or ſtrange thing, that under the Romans thoſe Cities ſhould become Metropoles, which formerly had not been ſuch, to which agrees that of the Councell of Chalcedon, Can. 12. which mentions, foreign Cities honoured by the imperiall Letters with the name and dignity of Metropoles.
And indeed the ſaying of*Geogr. l. 13. Strabo is of evident truth, ordinarily experimented, that Provinces were often confounded foreign, by cauſe of the Romans diſtributing them not according to the diſtributions of Regions or Nations (ſuch as the Geographers antiently had made uſe of) but after another manner, according to the Cities, in which they kept their Courts or Aſſiſes, as before was ſaid of the Cities of Aſia.
Accordingly when S. Paul firſt comes to Philippi, St. Luke mentions it under the title of the prime City of the Province of Macedonia, and is not that more to be heeded, ſpeaking ſo expreſly of that City at that time, then that Geographers deſcription, which no way diſcovers to what time it belongs, and cannot belong to this time of the planting the faith at Philippi, if S. Luke may be believed?
Secondly, the ſame St. Luke ſaith of it at that time, that it was foreign a colony of, i.e. a City repleniſhed by the Inhabitation of the Romanes; And of thoſe Colonies in chiefe Cities, there is no queſtion but they were eſpecially choſen to be places of their Aſſiſes, whither the Neighbouring Cities reſorted for Juſtice, and ſo were Metropoles in the civill accounts.
Thirdly, of this City of Philippi 'tis as evident, that it was the firſt converted of all Macedonia, and that from thence he went after to Theſſalonica; And ſo the right of Primogeniture, which ordinarily gave claime to the Metropoliticall dignity in the Eccleſiaſticall account (as in the caſe of Antioch and Jeruſalem appeares) belonging to Philippi, over and above the forementioned praecedence thereof in civill account, there is no reaſon to doubt, but this was a Metropoliticall Church, an Elder Siſter to Theſſalonica, and each a Mother to the Churches of leſſer Cities of Macedonia that belonged to them.
According to which it is, that Polycarpe in his Epiſtle, mentions St. Pauls Epiſtles in the plurall, written to theſe Philippians, which learned men interpret of the Epiſtles to the Theſſalonians, and it cannot commodiouſly be underſtood any other way.
Sect. VIII.
A third Confeſſion, of Timothies being an Archbiſhop. Of the qualifications, 1 Tim. 3 2. belonging to Biſhops. Of the Biſhops being worthy of double honour, though he never preach. Of the word, and Doctrine. Of the Presbytery, 1 Tim. 4. Of Rebuking and receiving accuſation againſt an Elder.
THe third Confeſſion is, that Timothy was Archbiſhop of Epheſus, that when Paul ſets downe the qualifications of Biſhops, though he mention none but ſuch as are common to a Presbyter with a Biſhop, yet he is to be underſtood to ſpeake of Biſhops in a Praelaticall ſenſe, and not at all of Presbyters; And when he ſaith the Elders that Rule well are worthy of double honour—, this is, ſaith this Author, the Biſhops that Rule well—thereby holding out this great errour, that a Biſhop that Ruleth well is worthy of double honour, though he never preacheth; And when St. Paul bids Timothy not neglect the gift that was given him by the laying on the hands of the Presbytery, that is, ſaith he, of Epiſcopacy; And when the Apoſtle chargeth him not to rebuke an Elder,—and not to receive an accuſation againſt an Elder,—this is to be underſtood of Biſhops, ſaith he, and not of meere Presbyters.
To this accumulative crime affirmed to be confeſt by me in ſo many particulars, I anſwer by avowing my Confeſſion thus farre, 1. that I take Timothy to have been Biſhop of Epheſus, and conclude it from 1 Tim. 1. 3. then that Epheſus was a prime Metropolis of Aſia, from the teſtimonies of Pliny and Vlpian, and generally the Antient Church-writers: And from thoſe two put together, I hope I may gaine liberty to confeſſe, that Timothy was Archbiſhop of Epheſus.
Secondly, That Paul 1 Tim. 3. 1, 2. ſpeaking of Epiſcopacy, as of a good worke or office, and the qualifications required in the perſon to be promoted to it ſpeakes of a Biſhop in the Praelaticall ſenſe; ſo I am ſure Chryſoſtome doth underſtand him, and the testimony was lately cited out of him, and Theodoret that underſtands it otherwiſe, yet applies it firſt to Biſhops, and ſaith on that occaſion, that their degree in the Church is ſuperior to that of Presbyters. And if no higher qualifications be required of a Biſhop, than are fit to be required of a Presbyter (which yet I no where ſay, and the argument taken from the no-other qualifications here ſpecified, than onelyonly for the Biſhop and the Deacon, are of no force to induce it, both becauſe it is a negative argument, and there is another reaſon for the omitting Presbyters, becauſe in this infancie of the Church there was not any ſuch need of them, the Biſhop with his Deacon, one or more, were ſufficient in every City, and beſides the qualifications aſſigned the Deacon, may be common to him with the Presbyter, as well as thoſe aſſign'd the Biſhop) yet that is no prejudice to the ſuperiority of the office, or to my interpreting that Text of the Biſhop; For ſure I may as conveniently ſay, that the Biſhop is named without the Preſbyter, at a time when there were Biſhops, but as yet no Presbyters in the Church, and that when there were Presbyters inſtituted, their qualifications were to be regulated by the rules given of Biſhops, as it can be imagined to be fitly ſaid by them, that the place is meant of Preſbyters (when the Apoſtle names Biſhops expreſly, and when by many other evidences we know, that then there were Biſhops, but by no footſteps can diſcerne that then there were Preſbyters) upon no other reaſon, but that the qualifications are common to Preſbyters.
Thirdly, For the mention of the Elders that rule well, 1 Tim. 5. 17. I doubt not but it may very commedicuoly be interpreted of the Biſhops through all his Province, for as there the ſtyle is foreign, praeſide or rule, ſo 'tis certaine, that in the uſe of the Church this was the title of the Biſhops, as hath formerly been ſhewed out of Juſtin Martyr and others, and the foreign double honor foreign the priviledge of Primogeniture, being aſſigned as his portion, is an evidence thereof.
And the inconvenience that is here urged againſt that interpretation, is perfectly of no force. For 1. if from hence it might be concluded that a Biſhop is worthy of double honour, though he never preacheth, then from their interpreting it of the Presbyter, it will as much follow to be their o…inion, that the Presbyter is worthy of double honour though he never preach.
But then ſecondly the truth is, that neither of theſe concluſions follow either the one or the other interpration, for the firſt phraſe of labouring in the word, and the other of labouring in the doctrine (which by theſe are confounded, and ſo expreſt undiſtinctly by preaching) denote two ſeverall things; the former the planting of the faith where it is not yet received, which is conſtantly expreſt by foreign, and foreign, preaching the Goſpell, and the word; the latter ſignifies taking paines in a Church already gathered, for the confirming and farther instructing of believers. And then as he that doth one of theſe, may yet poſſibly not doe both, occaſion not requiring, and ſo not be ſo eminently worthy of the double honour, as he that actually doth both; ſo certainly, he that rules well in any Church, and beſide the care belonging to rule, undergoes that other double hard travell (ſo foreign ſignifies) of preaching the faith to Infidels, and confirming, and inſtructing believers, doth very highly deſerve the double honour and alimonie; And this as it is the exact meaning of that Text, ſo it utterly ſuperſedes all force of this objection or exception againſt our underſtanding it of the Preſidents or Biſhops in the Praelaticall ſenſe.
Fourthly, For the word Preſbytery, 1 Tim. 4. 14. by which they ſay, I underſtand Epiſcopacy, I anſwer, that I interpret it of ſome combination either of Apoſtles or Apoſtolical perſons and Biſhops, foreign in Theodoret's phraſe, ſuch as were vouchſafed the Apoſtolicall grace, i. e. of Paul aſſuredly, 1 Tim. 2. 6. and perhaps of Barnabas, perhaps of ſome other Apoſtolical perſon with him, in like manner as both Peter and John ſtyle themſelves foreign Elders, and *Ep. ed Philad.Ignatius ſtyles the Apoſtles foreign the Preſbytery or Elderſhip of the Church, and as of Ignatius himſelfe S. Chryſoſtome affirmes, foreign, that the hands of more Apoſtles than one were laid on him, in his ordination to the Biſhoprick of Antioch.
To which matter the Scholion of Chryſoſtome is expreſſe, foreign, he speakes not here of Presbyters but Biſhops, adding the reaſon, becauſe Presbyters did not ordaine Biſhops, and ſo Theophylact and Oecumenius.
Laſtly for the other two places of not-rebuking and receiving an accuſation againſt an Elder, though in thoſe places it were clearely for my intereſt to interpret foreign a Presbyter in our moderne ſenſe, for then as*Cont. Ha. l. 3. t. 1. Epiphanius ſaith, there is an evidence of proofe that the Biſhop hath power over the Presbyter (foreign) Timothy over the Elder, ſaith he, but never the Elder over Timothy: Yet I confeſſe my ſelfe inclined by other conſiderations to foregoe that advantageous ſenſe of the place.
Becauſe Timothy being placed in the prime Metropolis had power over the Biſhops of leſſer Cities, and that, as hath oft been ſhewed, foreign as well as foreign power of …udging as well as of ordeining Biſhops, which is*Diſſert. 4. …. 19. Sect. 11, 12. elſewhere evidenced to be the opinion of S. Chryſoſtome, in order to the underſtanding of this place. And ſo ſtill the crime is not very great or reproachfull, which I am ſaid to have confeſt, it amounts no higher than the former confeſsion had done, that Timothy was Archbiſhop of Epheſus; and yet this you ſee without any neceſſity to extort it from thee, ſave that of ſpeaking freely what I conceived moſt probable; For otherwiſe nothing could be more for the advantage of the maine cauſe I defen…, than that foreign Elders ſhould ſignifie Presbyters in theſe two places.
Sect. IX.
A fourth confeſſion of Titus being Archbiſhop of Creet.
THeir fourth charge is, that I am forced to confeſſe that Titus was Archbiſhop of Creet, and that he received no commiſſion from S. Paul to ordaine ſingle Elders, but onelyonly for ordeining Biſhops in every City. It ſeems, ſay they, this Author ſlights the Poſtſcript, where Titus is called the firſt Biſhop of Creet, and ſlights all thoſe antient Fathers that are cited by his owne party, to prove that he was Biſhop of Creet: But he muſt be an Arch-Biſhop, and ſo muſt Timothy alſo, or elſe theſe aſſertions of his will fall to the ground. Now that they were neither Biſhops nor Arch-Biſhops hath beene ſufficiently proved (as we conceive) in the former diſcourſe.
That Titus was Arch-Biſhop of Creet, I confeſſe again that I cannot but believe, till I am ſhewed how the contrary were poſſible, i. e. how he that was faſtned in (and, as*Lib. 3. c. 4. Euſebius ſaith, had foreign the Epiſcopacy of) a whole Iſland, which had an hundred Cities in it, and was there placed, that he might ordeine Biſhops under him in each of thoſe Cities, Tit. 1. 5. 7. and, as the antients adde, exerciſe jurisdiction over them, ſhould be other than an Arch-Biſhop.
That this was his condition, hath been ſhewed already, And for the inconveniences that it is preſt with, they will prove very ſupportable. For I ſhall not at all be obliged thereby to ſlight either Poſtſcript or Fathers, but give the diſputers example to pay them all reverence, being very well able to diſcerne the Biſhop through the Archbiſhop, & having never imagined that the ſtyling Michael an Archangel was denying him to be an Angel. He certainly was an Angel, and that of an higher degree, or elſe could never have been juſtly called an Archangell; and 'tis juſt ſo with Titus, if I had not thought him a Biſhop, I could never have affirmed him an Archbiſhop, and they that in common ſpeech give him the title of Biſhop, doe no way intimate their thoughts to be contrary to mine, for every Archbiſhop is certainly a Biſhop, though every Biſhop be not an Archbiſhop.
And therefore if all the danger of my aſſertions falling to the ground be conſequent to this of Titus or Timothies proving to be no Archbiſhop, I ſhall deeme them competently ſafe, for each of them were unavoidably ſuch, Timothy Archbiſhop of Epheſus, the prime Metropolis of all Aſia, and Titus of the whole Iſland of Creet, and accordingly to thoſe two, peculiarly as ſuch, directions are given for the ordeining Biſhops and Deacons in every City.
And the proofes which were offered to the contrary, have I ſuppoſe already been anſwered, and being not here thought fit to be recited, the replyes ſhall not be ſo impertinent, as to appeare without their antagoniſts. OnelyOnly becauſe it is here inſerted as part of my inconvenient confeſſion, that Titus received no Commiſſion from Saint Paul to ordaine ſingle Elders (which I believe I no where ſay, any otherwiſe than that the Commiſſion, cap. 1. 5. was to create Biſhops in every City) I ſhal freely tell them my opinion of that, viz. that a greater power may very fitly be ſaid to comprehend under it the leſſer of the ſame kinde, and conſequently that both Timothy and he which had Commiſſions to ordaine Biſhops in every City, had alſo by the ſame commiſsion power to ordaine ſingle Presbyters, where thoſe were uſefull to be ordained, as is evident by the qualification of Deacons and Widows after-mentioned in one certainly, and, as I conceive, in both Epiſtles, for that ſuppoſeth their Commiſsion to extend to the ordeining of thoſe, who yet had not been named in them, if we may gueſſe by that of Titus, cap. 1. 5. And ſo much alſo of that part of my confeſsion, which is as free and unforced, as the former had been, and I believe as fafe to the affirmer.
Sect. X.
A fift charge of contrariety to Scripture anſwered. Of viſitation of the ſick, belonging to Elders, James 5.
BUt the fift and laſt charge is more ſevere than any of the former, that theſe paradoxes, as they ſtile them, are contrary to the very letter of the Scripture, as we have made it evident in our arguments againſt the Jus Divinum of Epiſcopacy, and would farther manifest it, if we thought it neceſſary.
This I confeſſe of contrariety to the very letter of the Scripture (rightly underſtood) I, lookt upon as ſo high a charge, that I verily expected ſomewhat extraordinary to binde it on me, and I ſuddenly reſolved (as I read the firſt words of that Section) to examine thoſe Scriptures that ſhould now be produced, ponderingly and exactly, and either confeſſe my owne conviction, or give competent reaſons why I was not convinced by them.
But I ſoon found my expectations fruſtrated, for as here is no one ſuch Scripture mentioned, ſo for their arguments againſt the Jus Divinum of Epiſcopacy, I know not where to ſeek them, and never heard (and verily believe there is no ſuch thing) that they had formerly written any ſuch Book againſt Biſhops, wherein the Diſſertations or any aſſertions of mine therein, were ſo much as arraign'd by them, much leſſe evidenced to be contrary to the very letter of Scripture: If I had, I aſſure them I ſhould then have been as ready to have made my reply, as now I have been to attend them thus farre.
And for their evidencing this in any tract publiſht by them before the Diſſertations were written, by which notwithſtanding the Diſſertations were to be concluded, I have no reaſon to thinke that to be their meaning, becauſe theſe aſſertions of mine are by them affirmed to be Paradoxes, contrary to all that have ever written in defence of Epiſcopacy, and therefore could not, unleſſe it were by divination, be taken notice of, and prevented by them.
After they had expreſt their opinion that it was not neceſſary for them farther to manifeſt the contrariety of my Paradoxes to the very letter of the Scripture, they yet farther proceed in theſe words,
For when the Apoſtle ſaith, James 5. 14. Is any man ſick among you? let him call for the Elders of the Church—who is there that can be perſwaded to believe that all theſe Elders were B…ſhops (in the ſenſe that Biſhops are taken in in our dayes) Is this the p…oper Worke of Biſhops to viſit the ſick? And beſides, if the Apoſtle by Elders had meant Biſhops in that ſenſe, he would have ſaid, let him call for the Elders of the Churches, not of the Church, unleſſe our brethren will ſay that there were divers Biſhops in every Church in the Apoſtles dayes, in which there were many ſick perſons.
What the [For] in the front here ſignifies, I ſhall not goe about to conjecture, The antecedents would incline me to believe that it pretends to introduce a reaſon, which might make it evident that my aſſertions are contrary to the very letter of Scripture: But that ſure it doth not any way attempt or appeare to doe, unleſſe the foreign Elders of the Church be ſuppoſed here to ſignifie Preſbyters in our moderne notion of the word: But then that is ſo farre from being granted, that it is knowne to be the onelyonly foreign, the matter of queſtion betwixt us all this while, and ſo was to be proved not ſuppoſed or preſumed in this matter.
But bating them this begging of the Queſtion, I ſhall proceed to ſatisfie their wonderment, that I ſhould goe about to perſwade any, that foreign Elders, in this place of Saint James, were Biſhops in that ſenſe that we now underſtand and uſe the word.
And 1. I ſhall not doubt to avow, that for all that ſpace, that in any Church there were no other officers ordained, but onelyonly the Biſhop and Deacon, it muſt of neceſſity be reſolved the proper worke of Biſhops to viſit the ſicke. That there was at the firſt, when the Faith was but thin planted, ſuch a time hath already been evidenced out of Clemens Romanus, and the profoundeſt antequities that Epiphanius could meet with, And that then this office muſt either be neglected, or performed by either Biſhop or Deacon, will not need any farther proofe.
As for the the Deacons in their inſtitution, we finde not that to be any part of their office, and indeed the ſuitableneſſe of abſolution to that ſtate of dangerous ſickneſſe, and the mention of foreign his having committed ſins, and the command of giving it (in caſe he be qualified for it) foreign, abſolvetur ei, abſolution ſhall be given him, doth render the Deacon incompetent for that worke, and ſo, where there are no Presbyters, muſt needs divolve it on the Biſhop.
And this account hath more than probability, no leſſe than perfect evidence in it, if we onelyonly ſuppoſe what hath been ſo oft cleared from the Antients to be matter of fact, that where the number of believers was ſmall, and none qualified for the office of Presbyters, there the Apoſtles conſtituted no more but a Biſhop and a Deacon in each City. For whilſt this was the ſtate of that City, I ſhall ſuppoſe a man ſick, and by the force of S. James's exhortation, deſirous of abſolution, &c. Who is there ſuppoſeable in that City to give it him but the Biſhop? And whom elſe can he call to him for this purpoſe? And then who can doubt but this is the worke, in it ſelfe very agreeable, and in this ſuppoſed caſe peculiar and proper to the Biſhop? ſo that unleſſe this ſuppoſition be falſe, nay impoſsible to be true, I may ſafely ſay, this was or might be the Biſhops worke, to viſit the ſick, &c.
And indeed, if it were not, how could it be by the Biſhop, when other parts of his office became his fuller employment, committed to the Presbyter? For 1. he could not commit this to others, if he firſt had it not in himſelfe; and Secondly, this was the onelyonly reaſon of ordaining inferiour officers in the Church, that part of the Biſhop's taske might be performed by them (as when the whole burthen, which was too heavy for Moſes, was diſtributed among other men) which in this particular could not be, if before this aſſignation of aſſiſtents, it were not originally the foreign worke or proper taske of the Biſhop.
To this may be farther added the reall dignity, becauſe neceſſary charity of this performance of viſiting the ſick, &c. and this ariſing both from the intimation of Gods owne finger, pointing out this a moſt agreeable ſeaſon for all spirituall admonition and comfort, a molle tempus fandi, wherein a word ſeaſonably ſpoken, may moſt probably find the due reception, and wherein the prayers and bleſſing of the moſt Apoſtolical perſon, or the moſt highly and juſtly dignified in the Church, & in the favour of God, may come in moſt opportunely, & in this reſpect we ſee in that place, that the prayers of the great Prophet Elias are made uſe of by S. James, to exemplifie the practice, which in this particular he recommended to the Church.
And I muſt needs tell the Objectors, that as meane an opinion as they ſeem to have of this work of viſiting the ſick, I cannot but affirme on the contrary, that if it were duely and advantagiouſly managed, it were extreamely uſefull and beneficiall to the good of Soules, and as proper for a Biſhop perſonally to performe, when his other publick neceſſarie taskes (wherein many more are concern'd, and wherein he hath no proxies to ſupply his place) permit, as any one part of his divine office, differing from the reſt only in this, (and in that reſpect yeilding the precedence to them) that other parts of his office are, or may be at the ſame time extenſive to many, whilſt each act of this is terminated in ſome one, whoſe ſoul yet ought to be more pretious in his eyes, than all other acquiſitions in the world.
Accordingly it is in the*Diſſert. 4. 21, 22. Diſſertations evidenced out of Polycarp's Epiſtle (who was ſomewhat after the time of James the author of this Epiſtle) that part of the Biſhop's office it was then eſteemed to be, foreign, to viſit all the ſick, in like manner as in Juſtin Martyr he is made the Curator of all that are in want, the grand diſtributer of all the liberalities of the Church.
As for the onelyonly objection that is here tendered againſt this interpretation of the place, from the ſingalar [foreign of the Church] not of the Churches, the anſwer is obvious, that this Epiſtle of James being written to all the Jewes in disperſion, Jam. 1. 1. theſe could not make up any one particular Church of any ſingle denomination, but yet all conjoyne very fitly in that one Vniverſal ſtyle of foreign, the Church. In this reſpect we know 'tis called the Catholick Epistle of James, becauſe written to the whole Church of the Jewes, all the believers of that nation, whereſoever disperſt out of their Countrey.
Now theſe inhabiting in divers Cities, it is as certaine there were divers Biſhops in this circuit, and ſo the foreign, the Elders of the Church, are moſt commodiouſly ſet to expreſſe theſe ſeverall Biſhops, belonging to this complexe body, the Church of the disperſion.
Not that there were more of theſe in one City, for that conſideration would never have cauſed the plural expreſſion, becauſe were there never ſo many, the ſick perſon needed not have called more at once (and upon that ſcore … ſhall demand of them that argue from the number, was every ſick man in their opinion, to call for the whole Preſbytery?) …or againe becauſe there were not as many Churches as Elders, but onelyonly becauſe theſe many particular Churches, of which there was an equal number of Elders, were very fitly comprehended under the one general foreign, the Church in the ſingular number.
Sect. XI.
A laſt objection from Act. 21. 18. and 14. 3. and 11. 30. anſwered. Elders for Rulers or Biſhops.
THere yet remaines one ſort of Objections more againſt theſe Paradoxes, in theſe words.
Beſides, when it to ſaid, Act 21. 18. Paul went in with us unto James, and all the Elders were preſent, It is ſuppoſed by our Epiſcopall men, that James was at this time Biſhop of Jeruſalem. Now we demand, who were theſe Elders? were theſe alſo Biſhops of Jeruſalem? will this anſwer conſiſt with our brethrens judgement? ſo likewiſe when it is ſaid, Act. 15 4. And when they were com… to Jeruſalem, they were received of the Church, and of the Apoſtles and Elders, we demand, what is meant by the Church? Is it not meant the Church of Jeruſalem, to which place they are ſaid to come? And if ſo, then we ask… farther, what is mean… by the Elders? Muſt it not be anſwered, that by Elders are meant the Elders of Jeruſalem? And then let any man … us, how theſe Elders can be ſaid to be Biſhops in a Prelatical ſenſe, especially according to the ſenſe of our brethren, who make James to be at this time the onelyonly Biſhop of Jeruſalem. Adde farther, It is ſaid, Act. 14. 3. Wh…n Paul and Barnabas had ordained them Elders in every Church, Act. 11. 30. They ſent reliefe to the Elders, &c. Can any imagine that this reliefe was ſent onelyonly to Biſhops, and that Paul and Barnabas ordeined no Presbyters in any Church, but only Biſhops? Is not this to offer manifeſt violence to the Scriptures? and inſtead of upholding of Epiſcopacie, is not this ſufficient to render it odious and contemptible to all ſober, and godly, and moderate Chriſtians? But we forbeare.
It ſeems we have ſtill remaining another heape of inconvenient Confeſſions that we labour under; And upon them, more ſocratico, they make their demands; And although I might juſtly wonder why they which have reade the Diſſertations, and know what anſwer I give to every of their demands, ſhould be at the trouble to aske them againe, yet becauſe I am reſolved not to be weary of attending them, I ſhall anſwer them as punctually as they could wiſh, and patiently ſupport all the odium that will reſult from thence, among all ſober, and godly, and moderate Chriſtians.
Here onelyonly I deſire two things may be remembred, which have already been evidenced, 1. that the word foreign Elder… in the ſtyle of the Old Teſtament, in the continued uſe of all languages, being an expreſſion of power and dignity, is in the New Teſtament upon all reaſonable accounts as properly applicable to the Rulers and Governours Eccleſiaſtical, as the word Apoſtles, or Biſhops, or Preſidents, or Rulers, or any the like would be thought to be, and withall very fit to expreſſe ſingle Rulers in each particular Church (in caſe any ſuch may otherwiſe appeare to be mentioned in Scripture) there being no propriety in the word, or peculiarity in the uſage of it, to incline it to joynt power of Collegues ruling in common.
Accordingly evidences have been produced in the Diſſertations to ſhew the continuance of this uſage among Authors after the Scripture-time, that it long remained in the language of the Antients, Policarpe, Papias, Irenaeus, Clemens Alexandrinus, and Tertullian, many of which are knowne and by the adverſaries acknowledged to aſſert Epiſcopacy in our moderne ſenſe, and yet uſe the word foreign Elders, to denote ſometimes the Apoſtles, ſometimes the ſingular Biſhops in each Church.
And therefore the affirming this one thing, ſo atteſted and confirmed, viz. that the word foreign may very conveniently be interpreted Biſhops, as oft as the circumſtances of the Text will beare it, will not, I hope, ſtill be ſo unfo…tu…ate as to fall under the cenſure of Paradoxe and odious, being indeed a plaine obvious obſervation, which hath nothing of difficulty or harſhneſſe in it.
Having praemiſed this, I ſhall onelyonly adde, that the Apoſtles being by all Praelatiſts (I hope convincingly) affirmed and proved to have ordeined Biſhops in every City of Converts and proſelites to the Faith, and there being many ſuch Cities in Judaea, beſides Jeruſalem, and conſequently many Biſhops in thoſe Cities, one in each, it can be no new thing to conclude, that when we read of Biſhops in the plural within that pale of Iudaea, theſe are the Biſhops of Iudaea, and ſo in like manner when we finde the Biſhop of Ieruſalem mentioned ſeparately, and then thoſe others with him, (expreſt by any title which ſignifies Biſhops, be it foreign or foreign it matters not) and with all, theſe never expreſt to be foreign Elders of the Church of Ieruſalem, but either Elders ſimply, or elſe foreign or foreign in or at Ieruſalem, denoting onelyonly the place, where, at that time, they were preſent, it will be as little harſh to inferre, that at ſuch time there were aſſembled or met together at Ieruſalem, Iames the Biſhop of that Metropolis, and the other Biſhops of the whole region, the Biſhops of Iudaea with him.
From hence there will now be no difficulty to make a briefe anſwer to each of their demands, 1. that Act. 21. 18. the Elders which were preſent with Iames the Biſhop of Ieruſalem, were the Biſhops of Iudaea which were then, upon the emergent affaires of the Church, preſent at Ieruſalem, whether all of them aſſembled in Councel, to receive an account of Saint Pauls tranſactions and ſucceſſes among the Gentiles v. 19. or many of them on any other Eccliſiaſticall concernment.
But that which puts it out of queſtion, that it was all of them in Councell, is, what followes v. 25. where they referre to the decrees which had been conciliarly delivered v. 15. by them, who are now there preſent, we have written and concluded. And what Paradox can there be in this, that all the Biſhops of Judaea ſhould be in Councell at Hieruſalem, and St Peter and St. Iohn with them, and that St. Paul ſhould come and give an account of his travailes and actions in their preſence.
The ſame anſwer certainly belongs to the place next mentioned c. 15. 4. where after mention of their Reception by the Church followes [and of the Apoſtles and Elders] by the Church is meant the Believers that were at Jeruſalem, whether inhabiting there continually, or now occaſionally preſent there. By the Apoſtles, James the Brother of the Lord, the then Biſh…p of the Metro…olis, together with Peter and John the known Apoſtles of Chriſt, this James by them ſet over that Church, ſaith*foreign, l. 6. Clemens and†foreign. Hegeſippus, and by S. Paul himſelf reckoned among the Apoſtles, Gal. 1. 19. and ſo in the title of his Epiſtle, and named before Peter and John the two prime Apoſtles, as being in this his See, Gal. 2. 9. and expreſt to pronounce the decree in the Councell, foreign, I judge, Act. 15. 19. and this confirm'd by the teſtimonies of thoſe Antients that the Preſbyterians make the moſt frequent uſe of, Theodoret and*Commen. in Iſa. St. Hierome; the former expreſly affirming of thoſe times, that they which were after ſtyled Biſhops, were then called Apoſtles, and the latter ſtyling this James particularly, Apoſtolum decimum tertium, the thirteenth Apoſtle.
And then what can be more agreeable to the Context (to make the Councell complete, a Councell for the Churches of Syria, &c, to appeale to) then to render the Elders the Biſhops of all Judaea, which were certainly fitter for the turne to joyne in the Councell, and give Law to other Cities, then the bare Presbyters of the one City of Jeruſalem could have been eſteemed, if any ſuch there had been in the Church ſo early.
For though of the Apoſtles, who had an univerſall juriſdiction, and of the Biſhop of Jeruſalem (as that was the prime Metropolis not only of Judaea, but Syria alſo) with the Biſhops of the whole Province in Councell with him, ſome reaſonable account may be given, why they ſhould be conſulted by the Church, of Antioch, and give binding decrees in that matter, to all that were ſubject to that Metropolis, yet ſuppoſing the Church of Jeruſalem to be governed by Preſbyters, and that (as theſe ſay) the Elders mentioned in the Councell were none but the Preſbyters of that particular Church, there could no reaſonable account be given, why they ſhould joyn with the Apoſtles in this worke, wherein not Jeruſalem, of which alone they were Presbyters, but Antioch and other Cities of Syria and Cilicia were immediately concerned, and concluded by the ſentence of James, that muſt be, (according to their opinion) of one of the Presbyters of Jeruſalem.
In the next place what is ſaid of Act. 14. 23. and Act. 11. 30. is ſomewhat unhappily put together, and yet not rectified in the Errata. For 1. the ordeining Elders in every Church to which Act. 11. 30. is affixt, is not mentioned there, but Act. 14. 23. and the ſending reliefe, which in the Syntaxes muſt be affixt to Act. 14. 23. is not to be met with there, but …ct. 11. 30. But this were imputable to ſome haſte either of Scribe or Compoſitor, were there not a ſecond incongruity interweaved in it, viz. that when Paul and Barnabas had ordeined them Elders, &c. (which was not done till Act. 14. 23.) They ſent reliefe to the Elders, (which was done Act. 11. 30.) which is an evident foreign which I cannot diſcerne how it was uſefull for them to be guilty of.
As for their Quaeres raiſed on theſe two Texts, the Anſwers are obvious, and here to be tranſlated out of the Diſſertations as formerly, that the foreign Elders Act 11. 30. are the Biſhops of the ſeverall Cities of Judaea, not the Pre…byters of that one City Jeruſalem.
For 1 the famine that occaſioned this charity of the Antiochians, was foreign, not upon Jeruſalem alone, but all the World, i.e. in the Scripture-ſtile, Lu. 21. 26. Rom. 10. 18. over the whole Land of Judea, according to the manner of the ſeptuagint, who oft render foreign the earth or the Land, when it ſignifies the Land of Judaea, by foreign the World, As Iſa. 10. 23. and 13. 5. 9. and 24. 1. and accordingly Joſephus ſaith of this time of Claudius's Reigne foreign, that there was a great famine over Judaea.
Secondly, the charity is diſtinctly ſaid to be deſigned by the Donors, foreign, to the brethren that dwelt in Judaea, in no wiſe confined to Jeruſalem, nor conſequently can the Elders to whom it was ſent, and in whoſe hands it was put, be any others than the Elders, i.e. ſay we, Biſhops of all Judaea.
Thirdly, it is very agreeable to the office of Biſhops, as we find the practice in the Primitive Church, to be the receivers and ſtewards and dispenſers of the wealth of any ſect, which was brought in to the Church, whether by the offertory of the faithfull in the Sacrament, or by the liberality of other Churches, inlarged to thoſe that were in want. It being Juſtin Martyr's affirmation of the firſt times, that all the offerings were brought to the foreign or Preſident, and that he was thereby made foreign the Curator of all that were in want.
And when what is ſent to the Biſhop is ſuppoſed to be ſent to him, as the Oeconomus or ſteward of the Church, not for the inriching himſelf, but to provide for thoſe that wanted, I cannot imagine why this may not be as conveniently ſuppoſed, as that it ſhould be ſent to the Pre…byters onelyonly.
So in like manner the foreign Act. 14. 23. are Biſhops againe, and ſuch and only ſuch (as farre as we have any footſteps of it) were at that time ordained in the Churches, one in every City where the Goſpell was received with one or more Deacons to attend him.
And to this as the words ſo often mentioned out of Clemens Romanus are moſt evident, that the Apoſtles of Chriſt preaching through Cities and Regions, conſtituted their firſt fruits foreign for Biſhops and Deacons, ſo the context in this place of the Acts is very agreeable: For here when Paul and Barnabas had preacht and converted a competent number at Derbe, v. 12. and returned to the Cities of Lyſtra, Iconium and Antioch v. 22. co…firming the ſoules of the brethren i.e. the faithfull, there it followes, before their parting, that they ordained Elders foreign in every Church, that ſure is in every of the Churches here named, not many in each, but Elders in all, one Biſhop in every Church, which again is no news for me or any Praelatiſt to affirm, when in the Epiſtle to Titus, St. Paul's direction is conformable to his practice, appointing him to ordaine Elders foreign, City by City, or in every City, c. 1. 5. and preſently calling the Elder ſo to be ordained Biſhop, as in the Epiſtle to Timothy he is alſo called.
Thus much paines I ſhall not grudge to have taken, if it be but to reſcue a ſmall booke, very innocently meant, from the charge of two ſu…h Paradoxes, as they are called by thoſe, who have not thought fit to believe them, and are as unwiling that others ſhould, and therefore conclude their diſcourſe againſt them with tragicall expreſſions of offering manifeſt violence to the Scriptures, of being ſufficient, inſtead of upholding Epiſcopacy, to render it odious and contemptible, &c. And when they have ſaid ſo much with ſo little weight of reaſon to juſtifie it, they will then part with all meekneſſe and perfect temper [but we forbeare] i.e. abſtaine to adde more, when they had ſaid as much ill as could be. I am ſorry there was ſtill any more bitterneſſe within, to be ſuppreſt, when there was ſo much vented. However it is, we are now at end of a ſecond poſt, and to have time to breath a while after ſome laſſitude.