(ßo6) to F} Presbyters (and not tó"theirBifhop onely.) And is it like tobe theBifhops of os ther Churches through all Achaia, that this one or rtpo is required to Obey and be in Subjeaion to. I have given my Reafons, to prove that thefe Presbyters were in the One Church of Corinth: Compare his (ifyou can find th -m) to thecontrary, and Judge Impar. tially as you fee caufe, Cap, 8. Hath nothing that concernethus, but the recitall of his grand Conce fion, left we fhould think that in Clemens days , thegreat Biileop ofCorinth,or any in Achàia, had any moreChurch-aff:mblies than one to whom he could do all. the Paftoral Offices himfelf, he thus concludeth, §. 9. [Indeedmention is found only of Bifhops (with Deacons) conflituted in each City, fometimes under the Title ofBifhops, fometimes of Presbyters ; there being no token or footflop at all appearing offach its we now call Presbyters, &c.] To which I wholly agree; though not that there was but. one Presbyter in Corinth. CI,. 9. He is offended muchwith Mendel, for reproaching Hermas, and yet ti- ling nis Teftimony : As ifaHereticks, or an Infidels Teftimony might not be ufed inpoint ofHiftory : And, S. 4. he again cometh tohis fuppofition of Bifhops withoutSubje& Presbyters, as ifitfervedhis turnmore than ours. Cap. so. About Pius words, bath nothingthat I find the caufeconcerned in. Cap. i t.. Is oflittlemoment toUs, both partieshave little thatis cogent, but vea Iltations about dubious words. Cap. 12. Is batabout the fenfe ofthe word applyed to Irenaus, which Dr. H. taketh here and by many after to meana Bifhop, and wonders that Bionic/ pleadeth for aparity oforder from acommon Name. But it is not fo muchwithout reafon ashemaketh it : For if Bifhops and Presbyters were in the firlt times called by oneName ; and the higheftPerfon in the Church then was ordinarily known by the name Presbyter,and the appropriating of[Bifhop] toone fort, and Presbyter to âthbiher came afterwards in by fuch infenfibledegrees, that no man can tell when it was ;:it foundsvery probable,that it was thetrue Epifcopal Power,or the fameOffice aridOrder,that was firft commonly polfeffedby them towhom thenamewasCommon . And fo rriuchof Dr. Hammond's Differtations, wherein i mutt defire the Reader tonote, r, That Imeddle not with other mens Caufes, nor particularly with the tìueftion Whetherone man in eachChurch, had of old, a guiding fuperiority co- ver the reftof the Presbyters ? Nor yet, whether the Apoftles had fuch fuc- cefiors:in the General careof manyChurches, (fuch as Vifiters, or Arch-Bifhops ) but only, 1. Whetherevery Presbyter were not Eflentially a Bifhop, or Gover- ssour ofthe Flock, having thepowerofkeys, asthey call it, in foro interiore ex. teriore, both for refolvingConfciences, and fat Church-order. 2. Whether every particular Church, whichordinarilycommunicated together in the Lords Supper, and had imamAimee, hadnot oneor more fuch Biïhopsi' 3. Whether it was . not a finful corrupting change, tobring inanother SpeciesofPresbyters ; and fo to de pofe all the particular Churchesand Bifhops, and fet up a Diocefane Bithop, infimi ordini,,with half-Churches and half-Priefts, under him in their !tend. z.: And note, .. That as it < concerned me not, to (peak to all that the Doltor bath.faid, fo I have carefully chofen out all that I thought pertinent andofa feeming weight, As -tothe caufe whichi marnage, pad havepalt by .nóthing -in the, whole Book, ..
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=