A plea for Scripture ordination, or, Ten arguments from Scripture and antiquity proving ordination by presbyters without bishops to be valid by J.O. ... ; to which is prefixt an epistle by the Reverend Mr. Daniel Williams.

CHAP. II (Book 2)

Presbyters have power to Ordain, because they are Scripture Bi∣shops. The Syriac Translation useth not different Names. If there be a difference, the prebe∣minence belongs to the Presbyter. Objection concerning Timothy and Titus answered. 1. The Ie∣suits urge this against the Prote∣stants. 2. The Scripture doth not call them Bishops. 3. The Govern∣ment of Ephesus was in the Pres∣byters of that Church. 4. St. Paul doth not mention Timothy in his Epistle to the Ephesians, as he doth in other Epistles. 5. When St. Paul took his last leave of them, he made no men∣tion of Timothy for his Succes∣sor, though he were present.

6. He did not reside at Ephesus. 7. Ephesus no Diocesan Church, but a Parochial or Congregati∣onal. The Asian Angels no Dio∣cesan Bishops: Prov'd from the extent of the Asian Churches, from Tyconius in Austin. Con∣tents of our authoriz'd Bibles, and acceptation of Angel in the Jewish Church.

THAT Ordination which hath all the Scripture requisits is valid,* 1.1 but Ordination by Presbyters hath all the Scripture requisits, Therefore—The Major is undeniable to Persons that own the inspired Writings to be a perfect Rule. The Minor I thus prove: The Scripture requisits of Ordination, are some in the Ordainers, some in the Or∣dained, some in the Circumstances of Ordination. As to the Ordained, they must have such Qualifications as the Scripture requires 1 Tim. 3.... These we are willing to be tried by. As to the Cir∣cumstances there must be Examination, Approbation, publick and solemn setting

apart by imposition of Hands, with Fast∣ing and Prayer. As to the Ordainers, 'tis enough that they were Presbyters, and as such had an inherent Power to Ordain; for according to Scripture, a Bishop and a Presbyter are one and the same, not only in Name, but in Office. The Elders or Presbyters of Ephesus are call'd Bishops of Ephesus, to whom the sole over-sight of that Church did be∣long, Acts 20. 17, 28. The Presbyters of the Jewish Diaspora, to whom St. Pe∣ter wrote, are requir'd 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to feed or rule the Flock, and to perform the office and work of Bishops among them* 1.2: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies to rule† 1.3. They are called Rulers and Go¦vernours‖ 1.4 ... Iustin Martyr calls the chief Minister of the Church 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. St. Paul's ruling Presbyter is Iustin's ruling Bishop. Bishops and Pres∣byters have one and the same Qualifica∣tions, Tit. 1. 5, 7. After he had given the Character of Persons to be Ordain'd Presbyters, v. 5, 6. he adds a reason, v. 7. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. There would be no force in the Apostles rea∣soning, if Bishops were of a superior Order to Presbyters.

The Scriptures own but two Orders of ordinary Church Officers, Bishops and Deacons* 1.5, and of these Bishops there were more then one in every Church: So there was at Philippi and at Ephe∣sus† 1.6. To be sure then, they were not Bishops of the English Species, i. e. sole Governors of many Churches, but Presbyters in a proper sence; many of which were Ordain'd in every Church, Antioch it self not excepted‖ 1.7 The A∣postles gave that Church no Primacy a∣bove Lystra and Iconium, but settled the same sort of Officers in all. Though af∣terward it overtopt it's Neighbours, and became a Metropolitical Church. But from the beginning 'twas not so.

The Syriac Translation, which is so very ancient, that it comes nearest in time to the Original, useth not two words, one for Bishop, another for Presbyter, as our Translation and the Greek, but it hath only 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the word in Chaldee and in Syriac signifies Presbyters. Tit. 1. 5. & Constitueres.. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Seniores in qualibet Civitate, v. 7 debet enim 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Senior esse irreprehensibilis. I have left thee in Creet to ordain Elders in every City, for an Elder [we say Bi∣shop]

must be blameless... So in 1 Tim. 3. 1. The Office of a Bishop, as we render it out of the Greek: The Syriac reads it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Office of a Presbyter. Instead of Bishops and Deacons in Phil. 1. 1. the Syriac reads it Presbyters and Deacons. This is a strong proof that the distinction of Bishop and Presbyter was unknown when that Translation was made, for it useth not so much as different Names. Of the Antiquity of the Syriac Version vide* 1.8Walt.

If there be any distinction between a Bishop and a Presbyter, the prehemi∣nence must be given by the Scripture to the Presbyters; for as our Bishops say, their Office distinct from Presby∣ters, is to Rule and Govern, and the Office of a Presbyter is to Preach and Administer the Sacraments. Now the Administration of the Sacraments and Preaching, are more excellent Works then Ruling and Governing. The A∣postle saith expresly, that they that la∣bour in the Word and Doctrine, deserve more honour then they that rule well‖ 1.9.

Moreover, the Apostles stile them∣selves Presbyters, but never Bishops. St. Peter calls himself Presbyter† 1.10, but never

calls himself a Bishop. And therefore it's a wonder the Pope, his pretended Successor, and those that derive their Canonical Succession from his Holiness, should call themselves Bishops, unless it be by the Divine Disposal to shew the fal∣libility of their Foundations.

The Papists,* 1.11 who therein are imita∣ted by some of our Adversaries, do say, That the Names are common, but the Offices are distinct. Thus Spensoeus* 1.12, a Sorbonist, objects, Nominum quidem esse, sed non munerum confusionem.

The Instances mentioned above do clearly Evince an Indentity of Offices.* 1.13 When the Apostle bids the Presbyters of Ephesus take heed to all the Flock over which the Holy Ghost had made them Bi∣shops† 1.14; he doth not speak of the Name but the Office. And 'tis evident that St. Peter‖ 1.15 speaks of the Office, when he Exhorts the Presbyters to feed the Flock, and to perform the Office of Bishops among them; so that there were as ma∣ny Bishops as there were Presbyters in Churches of the Apostles planting.

How comes it to pass when the Apo∣stle reckons up the several* 1.16 sorts of Mi∣nisters, which Christ had appointed in

his Church, that he makes no mention of Superior Bishops, if they be so necessa∣ry as some would have us believe. He mentions Pastors and Teachers. The Patrons of Episcopacy will not say Bi∣shops are meant by Teachers, their pro∣per work being Ruling: nor can they be meant by Pastors, for Presbyters are Pastors, and exhorted to feed the Flock* 1.17. Our Learned Writers against Popery think it a good Argument to disprove the Pope's Headship, that he is not mention'd in the List of Church Offi∣cers† 1.18 reckoned up in the New Testa∣ment: no more is a Bishop superior to Presbyters, so much as nam'd in those places. If any say 'tis omitted, because he was to succeed the Apostles, he hath the Pope ready to joyn with him in the same Plea for his Office.

Object.* 1.19 Timothy and Titus were Scrip∣ture Bishops, superior to Presbyters.

Answ. 1.* 1.20 The Papists urge this Ob∣jection against the Protestants. So doth Turrianus the Jesuit‖ 1.21; so doth Bellarmine. Our English Episcopacy hath scarce one Argument for it's De∣fence, but what will indifferently serve the Popish Prelacy. The Bishops best

Weapons have been Consecrated in the Jesuits School, and have been dext'rously manag'd against the whole Reformation.

[ II] II. But, I pray, where doth the Scrip∣ture give Timothy and Titus the Title of Bishops? The Postscripts to the E∣pistles directed to them, are confessedly no part of Scripture, nor are they ve∣ry ancient. The Postscripts to the Sy∣riac makes no mention of their being Bishops; nor can it be gathered from the Body of the Epistles, that they were Bishops. When the second Epi∣stle to Timothy was written, he was an Evangelist, and therefore no Bishop. He is exhorted to do the work of an Evangelist, 2 Tim. 4. 5. Suppose Paul had said, Do the work of a Bishop: would not our Episcopal Men have judg'd it a clear Argument for his Epis∣copal Power? Who could do the Work of a Bishop, but a Bishop? In like man∣ner we say, None can do the work of an Evangelist, but an Evangelist? Evan∣gelists were extraordinary Officers, a∣bove Pastors and Teachers* 1.22. The work of an Evangelist is set forth at large by‖ 1.23Eusebius: They did preach Christ to those which had not as yet heard the Word

of Faith, they delivered unto them the Holy Scriptures, or dain'd Pastors, com∣mitted to them the Charge of those that were newly received into the Church, and they did 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, pass over unto other Countries and Nati∣ons. With whom agrees* 1.24 Chrysostom, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

A Learned Prelate of the Church of England, conceives the Bishops to succeed the Apostles, the Presbyters to suc∣ceed the Prophets, and the Deacons to succeed the Evangelists; and if so, the Deacons may put in a Claim to the Or∣daining Power; for Timothy an Evan∣gelist assumed it, whose Successors they are. If Evangelists were not proper Successors to the Apostles, and Bishops be not Successors to the Evangelists, I cannot see how Timothy's doing the work of an Evangelist can support the Ius Di∣vinum of English Episcopacy.

Nor can anything be concluded from the Apostle's words to him, L••y hands on no man suddenly† 1.25: Doth it follow therefore the sole Power of Ordination in Ephesus did belong to him? It may

as rationally be inferr'd the sole power of Exhorting and Teaching did belong to him; for the Apostle bids him be in∣stant in season and out of season in preach∣ing the Word‖ 1.26. If it be said, Preaching is common to Presbyters, but so is not Ordination, it's gratis dictum, and a beg∣ging of the Question. Paul did not invest Timothy with a greater power then he himself did Exercise. He did not assume the power of Ordination in∣to his own hands, but takes the Pres∣bytery with him* 1.27. He joyned Barnabas with him, if not others, in the Ordination of Presbyters at Antioch† 1.28 Timothy's abiding in Ephesus doth not prove him to be Bishop there; for Paul did not in∣joyn him to be resident there, but be∣sought him to abide there till he came‖ 1.29, which he intended shortly to do* 1.30. The Apostle sent him to Corinth, Philippi, Thessalonica, furnished, without doubt, with the same powers which he had at Ephesus, otherwise his Negotiations had not been effectual to settle those Chur∣ches; and was he Bishop of these places also?

Bellarmine grounds Timothy's Episco∣pal Jurisdiction upon 1 Tim. 5. 19. A∣gainst

an Elder receive not an Accusation, &c. which Dr. Whittaker, Divinity Professor in Cambridge, undermines and overthrows by demonstrating that this place proves not Timothy's power over over Presbyters: his words are these, Ex Apostoli mente — According to the meaning of the Apostle to receive an Ac∣cusation, is to acquaint the Church with the Crime† 1.31. Which not only Superiors, but Equals, yea and Inferiors also may do.

The Presbyters and the People may receive an Accusation against their Bi∣shop; are they therefore Superior to him?‖ 1.32 Cyprian writes to Epictetus, and the People of Assura, not to admit For∣tunatianus to be Bishop again, because he had denied the Faith. He commends also the Clergy and People of Spain for rejecting Basilides and Martialis who had sacrificed to Idols.

III. When Timothy was made Bishop [ III] of Ephesus, where we find several Pres∣byter-Bishops before‖ 1.33: what became of them? were they unbishop'd and made simple Presbyters, that they must no more Ordain or Govern, but be subject to Timothy? 'Twas thought no small

punishment in after Ages for a Bishop to be degraded into the Presbyter's form, and 'twas for some notorious Crime. What Crime were these guilty of?

[ IV] IV. If Timothy was the fixed Bishop of Ephesus, whom St. Paul had deputed for his Successor, and so not subject to him any more, how comes he to pro∣mise to come shortly to Ephesus him∣self* 1.34. What had Paul to do in Ephesus now, if he had settled a Successor there, and had no power over him or his Church? He forbids others to be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, busie bodies in other mens mat∣ters† 1.35; and would he himself be such a one? 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 are condem∣ned‖ 1.36, and shall we make Paul of this number?

It's more unaccountable that St. Paul should write an Epistle to the Ephesians (long after the first Epistle to Timothy) and not mention their pretended Bishop Timothy in the whole Epistle, as he doth in all his Epistles to the Churches, ex∣cept that to the Galatians. It's a cer∣tain Evidence he was neither Bishop there, nor Resident there. We find him long after this at Rome, and invited by the Apostle thither, that he might be

helpful to him in the Ministry* 1.37, from whence the Apostle intended to take him along with him to visit the Chur∣ches of Iudea† 1.38: and was he Bishop of Rome and Iudea also? The truth is, he was no fixed Officer in any one place, but went up and down, sometimes as Paul's Companion, sometimes as his Messenger, to settle the Churches, as other Evangelists did. If Non-residen∣cy hath such a Patron, and Timothy hath taught Men, to leave their Churches year after year, and play the Pastors many hundred Miles distant, it may tempt us to dream that Non-residency is a Duty.

V. If he was not Bishop of Ephesus, [ V] when the first Epistle was written to him, he was none at all; for that Epi∣stle is made the Foundation of his Epis∣copal Power. He was no Bishop of Ephesus when Paul took his last leave of the Presbyters there‖ 1.39. He commits to them the oversight of the Church, as the proper Bishops of it, without the least mention of Timothy, though he was then present* 1.40. The whole Episco∣pal Power is given to the Presbyters, befor their supposed Bishop's face: or if

he had not been there at that time, how comes Paul to be so regardless (when he concluded he should never see their Faces any more* 1.41) as not to name his Successor? was he only ignorant of the prophecies concerning Timothy† 1.42. If he had not been qualified for this Office now, he might have given the Presby∣ters of Ephesus some hints concerning the Prophecies that went before on him, of his future usefulness as a Bishop in that Church. But why should any imagine so worthy a Person not qualified for this Undertaking? He that was qualified to be the Apostle's Messenger to so many Churches‖ 1.43, whom St. Paul stiles his Work-fellow* 1.44, and whose name he joyns with his own in his Epistles written to several Churches† 1.45, could not want a Character to render him worthy of this Charge at E∣phesus. How then comes the Apostle to over-look him, and to fix the Go∣vernment, in the Presbyters of that Church‖ 1.46? He told the Elders of Ephe∣sus at Miletus, that he had not spar'd to declare unto them all the Counsel of God. How can this be, when he neglects to inform them about his ordinary Suc∣cessor?

If Ministry and Churches de∣pend upon this Succession, 'twas no small part of the Counsel of God to be de∣clar'd unto them. He tells them he knew they should never see his face any more* 1.47. Whether he did see them again, or no, is not material to the point. 'Tis certain he thought he should not; how then comes he to leave them as Sheep without a Shepherd, to defend them a∣gainst those Wolves that should enter after his departure† 1.48? The reason is ob¦vious, he thought the Presbyters of E¦phesus fit for this undertaking, without a superior Bishop.

Thus we see that Timothy was no Bishop at this time, nor had the Apostle pointed at him as his intended Succes∣sor, but the first Epistle to Timothy (upon which his pretended Episcopacy is built) was written before this time; therefore no power given him in that Epistle, can prove him to be a Bi∣shop.

That this Epistle was written before his Imprisonment at Rome, when he went to Macedonia‖ 1.49, is acknowledg'd by Bishop Hall* 1.50, though he was a zea∣lous Defender of the Ius Divinum of

Episcopacy. Of this Opinion is Atha∣nasius, Theodoret, Baronius, Ludov. Capellus, Grotius, Hammond, Lightfoot, Cary, &c.

[ VI] VI. If Timothy was Bishop of Ephe∣sus when the first Epistle was written to him,* 1.51 how comes he to be absent from Ephesus, when Paul writ the second E∣pistle to him? was Timothy a Non-resi∣dent Bishop? Paul sends Tychicus to E∣phesus with an Epistle to the Church there, but not a word of Timothy their Bishop in the whole Epistle, but Tychicus is recommended to them as a faithful Minister in the Lord, Eph. 6. 21, 22. This was after the writing of the first Epistle to him, when he is supposed to be Bishop there, even when the second Epistle was written to him, 2 Tim. 4. 12. If any could imagine this Epistle to have found Timothy in Ephesus, how comes the Apostle to call him away from his Charge? 2 Tim. 4. 9. They that say, it was to receive his dying words, must prove it. The Apostle gives another reason, 2 Tim. 4. 10, 11. that he had on∣ly Luke with him of all his Compani∣ons, and therefore desires him to come to him, and to bring Mark with him, as

being profitable to him for the Ministry. He sends for Titus to come to him to Nicopolis (Tit. 3. 12.) from his suppo∣sed Bishoprick of Creet, and was he to receive his dying words there also, about fourteen years before his death? for that Epistle was written in the Year of Christ 55. and Nero's 1. vid. Lightf. harm. Vol. 1 p. 309. Nay, how comes the Apo∣stle to send him afterwards to Dalmatia? 2 Tim. 4. 10. was he Bishop there also? I question whether Non-residency was allowed of, much less injoyned to such stated Church-Officers as Timothy and Titus are feigned to be.

It is true, some of the Fathers say, they were Bishops of those places. But it's considerable that Eusebius saith no more, then 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, it is reported that Timothy was the first Bishop of Ephesus. He doth not affirm it. Theodoret calls him' 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, so he calls Titus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and yet few will take them for real Apostles. They say also that Peter was Bishop of Rome, yet ma∣ny of our Protestant Writers deny it; so doth* 1.52 Reynolds against Hart, and Dr. Barrow of the Supremacy. The Fa∣thers and Councils speak of the Officers

of former times, according to the style of their own.

To conclude; If Timothy and Titus be not Bishops of the English Species, then there were no such in the Apostles times. That Timothy was not such, we have proved; and if Timothy was not, no more was Titus, whose power and work was the same with Timothy's. If the power of Ordination, invested in Ti∣mothy at Ephesus, doth not prove him Bishop there, no more doth the same power given to Titus in Creet, Tit. 1. 3. prove him Bishop there.

[ VII] VII. But suppose Timothy and Titus were real Bishops, or fixed Pastors of Ephesus and Creet, it will be no Argu∣ment for Diocesan Bishops, except the Church of Ephesus, and that of Creet did appear to be of the same extent with our Diocesan Churches, which can never be proved. Did the Church of Ephesus consist of one hundred or two hundred Parishes, or particular Congre∣gations, under the conduct of their pro∣per Presbyters, which were all subject to Timothy, as their Bishop? This must be proved, or the instance of Timothy's being Bishop of Ephesus will be imper∣tinent

to the present Case. Nay, there are strong presumptions that the Church of Ephesus consisted of no more Members then could ordinarily meet in one place. That Church had but one Altar, at which the whole Congregation ordinari∣ly received the Lord's Supper, in Igna∣tius his time* 1.53, which was many years after Timothy's death. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. Give diligence therefore to assemble together frequently for the Eucharist of God, and for praise, for when you often come into one place, the powers of Satan are destroyed, &c. I render 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉into one place, as our English Translators do, Acts 2. 1. He saith also, 'O 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.* 1.54 He therefore that co∣meth not to the same place, is proud and condemneth himself. In his Epistle to the Magnesians, he mentions one Al∣tar, which further explains his mean∣ing* 1.55: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Let all of you come together, as into the Temple of God, as unto one Altar. The meaning

of one Altar is plain in ancient Authors. Cyprian calls separate Communions the setting up Altare contra Altare* 1.56.: To be intra Altare, is to be in Church Com∣munion; to be extra Altare, is to be without.

The Bishop of Salisbury doth ac∣knowledge that Ignatius his Bishop was only the Pastor of a particular Church; his words are these† 1.57: By the strain of Ignatius his Epistles, especially that to Smyrna, it would appear, that there was but one Church, at least but one place, where there was but one Altar and Com∣munion, in each of these Parishes, [which was the Bishops whole Charge.]

And if so, then the Church of Ephe∣sus, to whom he directed one of his E∣pistles, was of no larger extent, except we imagine it was decreased in Ignati∣us's time from what it was in Timothy's days, which is absurd. The Christians were rather more numerous in the next Age, then they were in the Apostles time. And yet we find in the begin∣ning of the fourth Century the Belie∣vers, in greater Cities then Ephesus, were no more then could meet in one place, or in two at the most. For Con∣stantine

the Great thought two Tem∣ples sufficient for all the Christians in his Royal City of Constantinople; the one he called the Temple of the Apostles;* 1.58 Vt doceret Scripturas, Apostolorum doctrinae fundamentum, in Templis praedicandas es∣se: the other he called, the Temple of Peace; Quia Concilii Nicaeni Operâ, quod celebrandum curaverat, Ecclesiae pacem restituerat, & Arrianorum impias con∣troversias compescuerat. Constantius ad∣ded one more; and there were but five Temples in that great City, that was lit∣tle inferior to Rome, in the days of Iu∣stinian. See Gentiletus his Exam. Concil. Trid. lib. 5. sect. 48. Some of our great∣er Parishes have as many Chappels, or Places of Publick Worship, as there were Temples in Constantinople, which are but a small part of an English Diocess. But the Learned Mr. Baxter, and Mr. Clarkson, have so fully proved the Eng∣lish Species of Episcopacy to be destru∣ctive of the Scripture and Primitive Form, that until they be solidly answer∣ed, we will take it for granted, that it is a Humane Creature which grew up as the Man of Sin did, and owes it's being to the meer favour of Secular Powers, who

can as easily reduce it to it's primitive Nothing.

Some have pretended to make Bi∣shops of the seven Asian Angels, when they have proved their power of Juris∣diction, and the extent of their Dioces∣ses to be the same with ours, they shall be heard. The state of Ephesus, one of the seven Asian Churches, we have seen already, by which we may guess at the rest.

The Church of Smyrna, another of the seven Churches of Asia, consisted of a single Congregation that ordinarily worshipped and communicated in one place.* 1.59 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Let all follow the Bishop, as Iesus Christ doth the Father, and the Presbytery as the Apostles, and reverence the Deacons as God's Command∣ment. Let none mannage any Church matters without the Bishop. And a little after he adds, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

Where the Bishop is, there let the Multitude be, even as where Christ is, there the Catholick Church is; it is not lawful without the Bishop either to baptize, or to make Love-feasts. Here it is evident, 1. That the Multitude, which were the Bishops Flock, ordina∣rily worshipped God together. 2. That they did this under the conduct of their respective Bishop, who was ordinarily present with every Church Assembly. 3. That he was the ordinary Admini∣strator of Baptism to his Flock, which he could not do, had it been as large as our present Dioceses. 4. That the same Assemblies had a Bishop, Presbyters and Deacons: For the same Multitude is to follow the same Bishop, Presbyters, and Deacons; and how could one Parish follow all the Presbyters of all other Parish Churches of a Diocess whom they never knew?* 1.60 Ignatius's Epistle to Polycarp, who was then Bishop of Smyr∣na, makes it more evident, that he was Bishop of a single Congregation, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Keep frequent Congregations, in∣quire

after all by name, despise not Men-servants and Maid servants. I leave it to such as are willing to understand the Truth, to consider how great Poly∣carp's Church then was, when the Bi∣shop himself was to look after every one by name, even the Men-servants and the Maids.

We find by Ignatius's Epistle to the Philadelphians (another of these Churches) that the Angel of the Church of Philadelphia had no larger a Diocess then those of Ephesus and Smyrna* 1.61: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Study therefore to use one Eucharist [or Eucharistical Communion] for there is one Flesh [or Body] of our Lord Iesus Christ, [which is represented in the Sacramental Bread] and one Cup [which is Sacramentally gi∣ven] into the union of his Blood, one Altar, one Bishop, with the Presbytery and the Deacons my fellow Servants. Nothing can be more full than this Testimony: They are all to joyn in one Assembly

for the Eucharist, and there must be but one Altar for this Communion, and one Bishop, and one Presbytery with the Deacons with him; and such a Bishop is a Parish Minister or Rector, assisted by his Curates and Deacons, the latter of which were originally instituted to serve Tables, Acts 6.

II. Tyconius's old Exposition menti∣oned [ II] by Austin, hath not been yet dis∣proved, which is this, That by the An∣gels are meant the whole Churches, and not any single Persons: Aug. lib. 3. 30. de Doctr. Christian. The whole style of the Text countenances this Exposition; for as every Message begins with (To the Angel) so it endeth with (To the Chur∣ches.)

III. In the Contents of our authorized [ III] Bibles they are expounded Ministers. By which we may understand the sense of the Old Church of England, agree∣able to many of the Ancients; such as Aretas, Primasius, Ambrose, Gregory the Great, Bede, Haymo, and many more.

Scripture is it's own best Interpreter; we find there that the Church of Ephe∣sus,* 1.62 over which one of these Angels presided, had several Bishops in it, and

all the other Churches had several Mi∣nisters in them, as will be acknowledg'd by our Antagonists: Now these other Ministers are included, either under the name of Candlesticks, and so reckoned among the People, which is absurd; or under the name of Stars and Angels. Many may be intended by one Angel, as afterward by one Beast, cap. 13. and one Head, cap. 17. It's remarkable, that it is spoken of the Candlesticks, the seven Candlesticks are the seven Chur∣ches; but of the Stars it's said indefi∣nitely,* 1.63 the seven Stars are the Angels (not seven Angels) of the seven Chur∣ches.

[ IV] IV. Angel is a name of Office, and not of Order, as is agreed by the Learn∣ed; it is a strange Consequence, To the Angel of the Church of Ephesus, therefore the Angel was a Bishop, and had Au∣thority over other Ministers. St. Iohn placeth the Presbyters next the Throne of Christ himself,* 1.64 and the Angels fur∣ther off at a greater distance; shall we therefore say that the Presbyters are more honourable then the Bishops? the Inference is much more natural then the other, if Angels be Bishops, as our

Adversaries affirm.* 1.65 St. Paul prefers the preaching, before the ruling Presbyter.

V. It's observed by many Chronolo∣gers, [ V] that Timothy was alive when the Epistle to the Angel of the Church of Ephesus was written,* 1.66 and shall we think that he had left his first love, whom Paul so often commends for his Zeal and Diligence in the Work of God.

VI. To put this matter out of doubt, [ VI] St. Iohn, a Jew, calls the Ministers of Particular or Parochial Churches, the Angels of the Churches, in the style of the Jewish Church, who call'd the Pub∣lick Minister of every Synagogue 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Angel of the Church.* 1.67 They call'd him also 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or Bishop of the Congregation. E∣very Synagogue, or Congregation, had its Bishop, or Angel of the Church. Now the Service and Worship of the Tem∣ple being abolished, as being Ceremoni∣al, God transplanted the Worship and Publick Adoration used in the Syna∣gogues, which was Moral, into the Christian Church, to wit, the Publick Ministry, Publick Prayers, reading God's Word, and Preaching, &c. Hence the names of the Ministers of the Gospel

were the very same, the Angel of the Church, and the Bishop, which belong'd to the Ministers in the Synagogues. We love Bishops so well, that we could wish we had as many Bishops as there are Parishes in England, as the Jewish Synagogues had, to which St. Iohn al∣ludes, when he calls them Angels of the Churches.

In sum, If Presbyters be Scripture Bishops, as we have proved, and Dio∣cesan Bishops have no footing there, as hath been evinced, then our Ordinati∣ons are Iure Divino, and therefore va∣lid.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Arg. 1.
• * 1.2

  1 Pet. 5. 1, 2.
• † 1.3

  Rev. 2. 27
• ‖ 1.4

  1 Tim. 5. 17-〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.5

  1 Tim, 3. Phil. 1. 1.
• † 1.6

  Acts 20. 17, 28.
• ‖ 1.7

  Acts 14. 21, 22, 23.
• * 1.8

  Walt. Praef. de E∣dit. Bib. Polygl. p. 30—40.
• ‖ 1.9

  1 Tim. 5. 17.
• † 1.10

  1 Pet. 5. 1.
• * 1.11

  Object.
• * 1.12

  Spens. contra Bu∣cer.
• * 1.13

  Answ.
• † 1.14

  Acts 20. 28.
• ‖ 1.15

  1 Pet. 5. 1. 2. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.16

  Eph. 4. 11.
• * 1.17

  Acts 20. 17, 28. 1 Pet. 5. 1, 2.
• † 1.18

  1 Cor. 12. 28. Eph. 4. 11.
• * 1.19

  Object.
• * 1.20

  Answ. 1.
• ‖ 1.21

  Vid. Turr. Sophis. in∣ter Sadeel. Op. p. 598.
• * 1.22

  Eph. 4. 11
• ‖ 1.23

  Euseb. Hist. 111. 34.
• * 1.24

  In Eph 4.
• † 1.25

  1 Tim. 5. 22.
• ‖ 1.26

  2 Tim. 4. 1. 2.
• * 1.27

  1 Tim. 4. 14.
• † 1.28

  Acts 14. 23.
• ‖ 1.29

  1 Tim. 1. 3. & 4. 13, 14.
• * 1.30

  1 Tim. 3. 14, 15.
• † 1.31

  Whitt. contr. 5. q. 1. c. 2. s. 16.
• ‖ 1.32

  Cypr. Ep. 64—68.
• ‖ 1.33

  Acts 20. 17, 28.
• * 1.34

  1 Tim. 3. 14. 15. & 4. 13.
• † 1.35

  1 Tim. 5. 13.
• ‖ 1.36

  1 Pet. 4. 15.
• * 1.37

  2 Tim 4. 9, 10, 11.
• † 1.38

  Heb. 13. 23.
• ‖ 1.39

  Acts 20. 17, 28.
• * 1.40

  Acts 20. 4, 5, 6, 7, 13, 14.
• * 1.41

  Ib. v. 25.
• † 1.42

  1 Tim. 4 14. 1 Tim. 1. 18.
• ‖ 1.43

  1 Cor. 4. 17. Act. 17. 14. & 18. 5.
• * 1.44

  Rom. 16. 21.
• † 1.45

  2 Cor. 1. 1. 1 Thess. 1. 1. 3 Thess. 1. 1
• ‖ 1.46

  Act. 20. 28 27.
• * 1.47

  Acts 20. 25.
• † 1.48

  Acts 20 29 V. 28.
• ‖ 1.49

  Acts 20. 1, 2, 4. 1 Tim. 3. 3.
• * 1.50

  Vind. p. 97.
• * 1.51

  2 Tim. 4. 12
• * 1.52

  Reynolds against Hart, p. 110, 111—118.
• * 1.53

  Ignat. Ep. ad Ephes. Voss. Edit. p. 25.
• * 1.54

  p. 20.
• * 1.55

  Ignat. ad Mag. p 34.
• * 1.56

  Cypr. Ep.
• † 1.57

  Burn. Vindic. of the Ch. of Scotland, p. 51.
• * 1.58

  Trlp. Hist. lib. 2. c. 18. In Gent. Exam. p. 399.
• * 1.59

  Epist. ad Smyr p. 6.
• * 1.60

  Ignat. ad Polyc. p. 12
• * 1.61

  Ignat. ad Philadelph. p.40.
• * 1.62

  Acts 20.17.28.
• * 1.63

  Rev. 1.20.
• * 1.64

  Rev. 5.11.
• * 1.65

  1 Tim. 5.17.
• * 1.66

  Rev. 2.2
• * 1.67

  vid. Lights Vol. 2. p. 133.