APreface to theReader. degree it leaf/ from that height wheretohe would exalt ir. For the firft of there , he tells you that Philippi was the Metropolitan Churchof theProvinceofMacedonia; that the reft of the Churches, which had every one theirfeveral Bi/bops ( Dioce /an we muft fuppofe) were all comprifed in thementioning ofPhilippi : fo that though the Epiftle be precifely diret`.ted a¡çzyiot5 t7c ;al üotAíwcis , yetthe El/hops that were with them , muft be fuppofed to be Bi- Jhops ofthewhole Province ofMacedonia; becaufe the Churchof Philippi was the c7'(etropoli- tan : The whole country mull: have been fuppofedto be converted (and who that knowes any thing of Antiquitywill difpute that) and fo divided with Diocefan s , as England of late Was: the Arch-7101s to beeing at Philippi : but how came it then to pals , that here is mention made of Bslhops,, and Deacons only , without any oneword of a third order, or rankeofmen diftinâ from them called Presbyters or Elders? To this he Anfwers, zly , That when the Church was firft planted , before any great number were converted , or any fit tobe made Presbyterr,there was only thole two orders inflitutedBithops and Deacon: fo-that this Church at Philippi feemes to have been a Metropolitical Infant. The truth is ifever theDoflour be put upon reconciling the Contradictionsofhis anfwersone to another,not only inthis,but almoh inevery particular he dealeswithal) (an entanglement which he is thrown into , by his bold and groundlefs conjectures ) he will find it to be as endlefs,as fruitlels : but it is not my pre- feat bufinefs to interpolein his quarrels, either with himfelfe, or Presbytery. As to the matter underconfideration , I delire only to be refolvedin ihefe few Queries. I If there were in the times of Clement no Presbyters in the Churches, notin fo great and flourifhing a Church , as that of Corinth; and ifall the places in the Scripture, where there is mentionofElders , do precifely intendBiJbops , in a dittinaion from themwho are only Descons,and not Bifhops alto , as he afferts,when,by whom, by what Au thority,were Elders, whoare only fo inferiorto a3ifhòps, peculiarly fo termed,inftituted and appointed in theChur- ches ? And how it comesto pals that there is fuch exprefs mentionmadeof the Office ofDea- cons , and the continuance ofit, none at all ofElders, who are acknowledged tobefuperionr to them , and on whole fhoulders in all their own Churches,liesthe great weight and burden ofall Ecclefiaflical Adminiftration. As we fay oftheir Bifheps, fo shall weofany Presbyter, not inftituted and oppointed by theAuthority ofJefus Chrift in the Church , let themgo to the placefromwhence they came. z I defire the DoElour to informe me, in what fenfe hewould haveme to underhandhim: Differ. z. cap. 29.2I,22: where hedifputes that thofe words ofHierom. Antequàmfludia ix Religion fierent , & diceretur inpopulis , Ego fumPauli, ego Cephee communi Presbyterorum confenfu ecclefiagubernabantur, are robeunderf/ood of the times of the Apof/les , whenthe firft Schifme was in the ChurchofCorinth,when it feemes that neither tben,nor a good while after,therewas any lochthing as Presbyters in the Church of Corinth,nor in any other Church as wecan hear of : As alto to tell us whether all thole Presbyters, were Bi/hops properly fo called; diftinel from Elders who are only fo ,out ofwhom one man is chofen tobe a Bithop properlyfo called. To thefe enquiries I fhall only adde. sly, That whereas in the Scripture , we find clearly but of twoforts of Church-Officers mentioned , as alfo in this E'piflleof Clement; the third that was afterward introduced , be it what it will,orfall on whom it will,that we oppofe. This (faith the Dohleur) is that ofPres- bytery, give us the Churches inflituted according CO the wordofChrift , give us in every Church, Bithops, andDeacons, ( rather thenwe will quarrel give us a Bithop , and Deacons ) let thofeBifhops attend the particular Hock, over Which they are appointed, preaching the word and adminiftring the holyordinances ofthe Gofpel , in and to their own flock: And I dare undertake for all the Contendersfor Presbytery in this nation, andmuch more for the indepen- dents , that there {hall be an end ofthis quarrel; that theywill not f/rive with the Dofleur, not any living, for the introduction ofany third fort , ofperlons ( though they fhouldbe called Presbyters) into Church Office and goverment. Only this Imuft adde,that the Scripture more frequently termes this lecond fort ofmen Elders, and Presbyters,then it doth Bifhops,and that word having been appropriated to a third fort peculiarly , we delire leave ofthe Dot-lour and his affociates, if we alfo mop frequentlycall them fo, no wales declining theother Appellati- onof Ripops fo that it be applyed to hgnify thefecoad., and not third rankeofmen: Butof this wholebufinefs with the nature conlitution ,and frame of the firft Churches and the fad miftakes, that mea have by their ownprejudices been ingaged into , in this delineation ofthem,a fuller opportunity ( if God.will )may eare long,be afforded. To returne then to our Ignatiue I evenupon this confideracion ofthe difference, that is between the epiffles afcribed to him , and the writings ofone ofthefame timeWith him, or not D z long
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=