in the Sequel of this Difcourfe; and I fhall only fhew here, what confiderable Reasons our ingenious Enquirer has given in this very Treatife of his to perfuade himself, and all other Sons of Peace, "(like him) to confent to this Diftin&tión. The first Reason I observe from him is this, that for want of thus acknowledging this Difference of Order and Prerogative in the ChurchOfficers ordain'd by the Apostles Hands, he has brought a perplexing Difficulty upon himfelf, and fet the Holy Scriptures and Primitive Fathers of the Church at a feeming Variance (at leaft) and well-nigh palpable Contradiction with one another: For thus he tells us, in the very next Paragraph after the two Quotations abovemention'd; *Whether (fays he) in the Apoftolical and Primitive Days there were more Bishops than one in a Church, at first fight feems difficult to refolve; that the Holy Scriptures, and Clemens Romanus mention many in one Church, (fays he) is certain; and, on the other hand, it is as certain, that Ignatius, Tertullian, Cyprian, and the following Fathers, affirm, that there was and ought to be but One: Thefe Contradictions and feeming Difficulties (as he calls them) he takes the pains of writing his elaborate Enquiry in hopes to reconcile. Surely, he had fome extraordinary Inclination to folve them in a peculiar and different way from others: For, The fecond Reafon I obferve from him for reconciling all at once, is, because he fhews us a more * See Enquiry, &c. p. 1 1. § 5. a more plain, natural, and truly primitive Way than that, in one fingle Paffage of his Book before us. You may find it in his 4th Chapter, P. 65. of this Enquiry; where his Affertion is, that the first who exprefs'd thefe Church-Officers by the diftinct Terms of Bishops and Presbyters, was Ignatius, who lived in the Begin ning of the fecond Century. And from hence I crave Leave to obferve these three Things. ift, That as often as we meet with the Word Bishop or Presbyter in the Holy Scriptures, we cannot, by the Term itself, determine which of the two, according to the more diftinct Language of the Ages immediately following, we muft neceffarily understand by it; unless the Context, or fome peculiar Circumstance befides, does more clearly explain it to us. And, 2dly, That the fame Latitude of Signification muft for the fame Reafon be allow'd to Clemens Romanus's Bifhops and Presbyters too, because that holy Bishop * fuffer'd Martyrdom before Ignatius's Epiftles were written; wherein the different and determinate Senfe of thofe Words (as our learned Enquirer affirms) were first establish'd in the Church. And therefore, 3dly, 'Tis but doing Juftice to Tertullian in his Quotation, and allowing him and all the Fathers after him to mean by their Bishops fuch as the whole Church did then understand, when the Pre-eminence of that Name above the Name of Presbyters was fully fettled; and to interC 3 pret * Clem. Rom. martyr'd, A. D. 100. S. Ignatius fent to Rome, and in his Way writing his Epiftles, A. D. 107 See Dr. Cave's Chron. of the three firft Centuries. pret S. Clemens's Bishops by that unwarrantable Latitude of Signification which is acknowledg'd to have been in general Ufe in his Time, and confequently no Violence or Injuftice is done to his Quotations, if we take them to be meant of fuch Bishops, as were afterwards determi nately named and allowed to be no others than common Presbyters, in Subordination to a higher Church-Officer (as to be fure they were at their firft Ordination in the Apostles Times) and then the great Perplexity and doubtful Contradiction of the Holy Scriptures and Venerable Fathers, about one or more Bishops in one and the fame Church at a time, does naturally (and in perfect Analogy to the Senfe and Language of the Primitive Church) refolve and reconcile itself. For, that many fuch Bishops (indifferently call'd Presbyters in the Holy Scriptures and firft Age of the Church) were placed by the Apostles in particular Churches, is agreed (I think) by all: But that more Prefbyters than one of that determinate Order or Degree, which were peculiarly call'd Bishops afterwards, fuch as Clemens placed by S. Peter at Rome, or S. Polycarp by S. John at Smyrna, were ever ordain'd or fettled by an Apoftle in any particular Church of theirs, I think I may freely fay, is no where to be read in all primitive Antiquity; and our Author's own Quotation from Tertullian here is one very pregnant Instance of the Thing. Thus have I fhewn what a Peaceable and Authentick Way (agreeable to the Senfe and Writings of the early Ages our Enquirer appeals to) he himself has pointed out for us to compro compromise that Difference; and his Labouring to do it in a more intricate and unprecedented Way, I am afraid, will never attain his pious Ends of Peace and Unity so well. However, in the very next Breath, he fixes upon this for a fure Truth, that there was but one Supreme Bishop in a Place. This feems a very Orthodox and Primitive Affertion: But why fuch fingular Difference, in the Expreffion itself, from the common Language of the holy Fathers within his own three Centuries? They speak often enough of but one Bishop in a Church; but of one Supreme Bishop in a Church, I don't remember I have ever read in their Writings. Nay, his own Quotations in this very Place (as you may fee them in the* Margin here) bear witness for me, that the Venerable S. Cyprian and Cornelius did not express themselves fo: And befides, the former of these in the Name of eighty feven African Bishops, then in Council with him, declar'd, that none of them were Bishops over Bishops. What are we to understand then by this Supreme Bishop, who is to be but Bishop of a fingle Church too? The Anfwer is plain: The common Language of the Primitive Fathers would not do here; it would not fuit with the following Scheme of C 4 this * Unus in ecclefiâ ad tempus facerdos. Cyp. Ep. 55. $6. [or Ep. 59. p. 129. Edit. Oxon.] Ουκ ηπίςατο ἕνα Ἐπίσκοπον δὲν ἐν καθολική innanoia. Ad Fabium Antioch. apud Eufeb. 1. 6. p. 43. + Neque enim quifquam noftrum Epifcopum fe Epif@oporum conftituit. Concil. Carthag. in præfat. apud Cypr. p. 229. Edit. Oxon. this Enquiry. For when thofe Fathers named a Bishop of a Church, they needed no Epithet of a Superlative Degree to distinguish him from any other Ecclefiaftical Officer within the Church, but concluded the Original Order he was of, did that of courfe for them. But our learned Author, who difcerns what Primitive Antiquity never faw, viz. That every Presbyter who minifter'd in any Church, had receiv'd Episcopal Authority by Apoftolical Inftitution or Succeffion, as properly and truly as any Bishop in the Catholick Church whatfoever, (which he pofitively affirms to be fo, p. 70. of this Enquiry) ftood in need of fuch a distinguishing Epithet for his fingle Bishop indeed; and as his Phrafe appears to be thus plainly fingular and new, fo we may well expect, that the Notion itself, upon which it is grounded, (which I fhall not here prevent myself from confidering in its Place) will appear to be fo too. In the mean time, that Orthodox Obfervation he makes immediately after this, feems fomewhat extraordinary, if it were but only for the Timing it. He had juft faid, there was but one Supreme Bishop in a Church, tho' (as I fhew'd just now) there might be many more Bishops there of Apoftolical Inftitution by their Order (in his Sense of them) as well as that one; and yet forthwith he obferves to us, that by the Aiadoxal, or Succeffion of Bifhops, ordain'd by the Apofiles, the Orthodox were wont to prove the Succffion of their Faith, and the Novelty of that of Hereticks; and quotes two |