orders of them both. And in this sense it is, if it be at all, that presbyters are sometimes in Scripture called bishops.

2. Why may not bishops' be understood properly? For there is no necessity of admitting that there were any mere presbyters at all, at the first founding of this church. It can neither be proved from Scripture, nor antiquity, if it were denied. For indeed a bishop, or a company of episcopal men, as there were at Antioch, might do all that presbyters could, and much more. And considering that there are some necessities of a church, which a presbyter cannot supply, and a bishop can, it is more imaginable that there was no presbyter, than that there was no bishop. And certainly it is most unlikely that what is not expressed, to wit, presbyters, should be only meant, and that which is expressed should not be at all intended.

3. With the bishops' may be understood in the proper sense, and yet no more bishops in one diocese than one, of a fixed residence; for in that sense is St. Chrysostom and the fathers to be understood in their commentaries on this place, affirming that one church could have but one bishop ;' but then take this along, that it was not then unusual, in such great churches, to have many men who were temporary residentiaries, but of, an apostolical and episcopal authority, as in the churches of Jerusalem, Rome, Antioch there was, as I have proved in the premises. Nay, in Philippi itself, if I mistake not, an instance may be given full and home to this purpose: "Salutant te episcopi Onesimus, Titus, Demas, Polybius, et omnes qui sunt Philippis in Christo, unde et hæc vobis scripsi," saith Ignatius, in his epistle to Hero, his deacon. So that many bishops, we see, might be at Philippi, and many were actually there long after St. Paul's dictate of the epistle.

4. Why may not bishops' be meant in the proper sense? Because there could not be more bishops than one in a diocese. No? By what law? If by a constitution of the church after the apostles' times, that hinders not, but it might be otherwise in the apostles' times. If by a law in the apostles' times, then we have obtained the main question by the shift,

· Τί τοῦτο; μιας πόλεως ἐπίσκοποι ἦσαν οὐδαμῶς, — Chrys. in Phil. i.

and the apostles did ordain that there should be one, and but one, bishop in a church, although it is evident they appointed many presbyters. And then let this objection be admitted how it will, and do its worst, we are safe enough.

5. With the bishops,' may be taken distributively; for Philippi was a metropolis, and had divers bishopricks under it; and St. Paul, writing to the church of Philippi, wrote also to all the daughter-churches within its circuit, and therefore might well salute many bishops, though writing to one metropolis; and this is the more probable, if the reading of this place be accepted according to Ecumenius: for he reads it not σὺν ἐπισκόποις, but συνεπισκόποις, " Co-episcopis, et diaconis," "Paul and Timothy to the saints at Philippi, and to our fellow-bishops."

6. St. Ambrose refers this clause of "cum episcopis, et diaconis," to St. Paul and St. Timothy; intimating, that the benediction and salutation was sent to the saints at Philippi from St. Paul and St. Timothy with the bishops and deacons, so that the reading must be thus: "Paul and Timothy with the bishops and deacons, to all the saints at Philippi," &c. "Cum episcopis et diaconis, hoc est, cum Paulo, et Timotheo, qui utique episcopi erant, simul et significavit diaconos qui ministrabant ei. Ad plebem enim scribit. Nam si episcopis scriberet, et diaconis, ad personas eorum scriberet, et loci ipsius episcopo scribendum erat, non duobus vel tribus, sicut et ad Titum et Timotheum "."

7. The like expression to this is in the epistle of St. Clement to the Corinthians, which may give another light to this, speaking of the apostles, καθιστάνοντας ἀπαρχὰς αὐτῶν εἰς ἐπισκόπους, καὶ διακόνους τῶν μελλόντων πιστεύειν. “ They delivered their first fruits to the bishops and deacons "." 'Bishops' here indeed may be taken distributively, and so will not infer that many bishops were collectively in any one church; but yet this gives intimation for another exposition of this clause to the Philippians. For here either presbyters are meant by dianóvovs, ministers; or else presbyters are not taken care of in the ecclesiastical provision, which no man imagines, of what interest soever he be; it follows then that bishops and deacons' are no more but ' majores,' and 'minores sacer

dotes' in both places; for as 'presbyter' and 'episcopus' were confounded, so also 'presbyter' and "diaconus;' and I think it will easily be shown in Scripture, that the word diaconus' is given oftener to apostles, and bishops, and presbyters, than to those ministers, which now, by way of appropriation, we call deacons. But of this anon. Now again to the main

observation.

Thus also it was in the church of Ephesus; for St. Paul, writing to their bishop, and giving order for the constitution and deportment of the church-orders and officers, gives directions first for bishops, then for deacons. Where are the presbyters in the interim? Either they must be comprehended in bishops or in deacons. They may as well be in one as the other; for diaconus' is not in Scripture any more appropriated to the inferior clergy, than episcopus' to the superior, nor so much neither. For episcopus' was never used in the New Testament for any, but such as had the care, regiment, and supravision of a church, but diaconus' was used generally for all ministries.

But yet supposing that presbyters were included under the word episcopus,' yet it is not because the offices and orders are one, but because that the order of a presbyter is comprehended within the dignity of a bishop. And then indeed the compellation is of the more principal, and the presbyter is also comprehended, for his conjunction, and involution in the superior, which was the principal observation here intended. "Nam in episcopo omnes ordines sunt, quia primus sacerdos est, hoc est, princeps est sacerdotum, et propheta et evangelista, et cætera adimplenda officia ecclesiæ in ministerio fidelium;" saith St. Ambrose %. So that, if, in the description of the qualifications of a bishop, he intends to qualify presbyters also, then it is principally intended for a bishop, and of the presbyters only by way of subordination and comprehension. This only by the way, because this place is also abused to other issues; to be sure it is but a vain dream, that because presbyter is not named, that therefore it is all one with a bishop, when as it may be

f In Tim. iii.

In Ephes. iv. Idem ait S. Dionysius Eccles. Hierarch. cap. 5. “Hde T㢠ἱεραρχικῆς τάξεως δύναμις ἐν πάσαις χωρεῖ ταῖς ἱεραῖς ὁλότησιν, i. e. τάξεσιν καὶ διὰ πασῶν τῶν ἱερῶν τάξεων ἐνεργεῖ τὰ τῆς οἰκείας ἱεραρχίας μυστήρια.

comprehended under bishop as a part in the whole, or the inferior within the superior, (the office of a bishop having in it the office of a presbyter and something more,) or else it may be as well intended in the word 'deacons,' and rather than the word bishop.' 1. Because 'bishop' is spoken of in the singular number, deacons' in the plural, and so liker to comprehend the multitude of presbyters. 2. Presbyters, or else bishops, and therefore much more presbyters, are called by St. Paul, diánovo, "ministers;" deacons' is the word; διάκονοι δι ὧν ἐπιστεύετε, “ deacons by whose ministration ye believed." And, 3. By the same argument deacons may be as well one with the bishop too; for, in the epistle to Titus, St. Paul describes the office of a bishop, and says not a word more either of presbyter or deacon's office; and why, I pray, may not the office of presbyters in the epistle to Timothy be omitted, as well as presbyters and deacons too in that to Titus? or else why may not deacons be confounded, and be all one with bishop, as well as presbyter? It will, it must be so, if this argument were any thing else but an airy and impertinent nothing.

After all this, yet it cannot be shown in Scripture that any one single and mere presbyter is called a bishop; but it may be often found that a bishop, nay, an apostle, is called a presbyter, as in the instances above; and therefore, since this communication of names is only in descension, by reason of the involution or comprehension of presbyter within 'episcopus,' but never in ascension; that is, an apostle, or a bishop, is often called presbyter, and deacon, and prophet, and pastor, and doctor, but never retrò;' that a mere deacon, or a mere presbyter, should be called either bishop or apostle, it can never be brought either to depress the order of bishops below their throne, or erect mere presbyters above their stalls in the quire. For we may as well confound apostle and deacon, and with clearer probability, than episcopus and presbyter. For apostles and bishops are in Scripture often called deacons. I gave one instance of this before, but there are very many. Εἰς διακονίαν ταύτην, was said of St. Matthias, when he succeeded Judas in the apostolate. Kanos son diánovos, said St. Paul to Timothy, bishop of Ephesus F. St. Paul is called διάκονος τῆς καινῆς διαθήκης, “ a deacon

2 Cor. vi. 4.

of the New Testament;” and διάκονοι δι ὧν ἐπιστεύσατε, is said of the first founders of the Corinthian church; "deacons by whom ye believed." Paul and Apollos were the men. It is the observation of St. Chrysostom, καὶ διάκονος ἐπίσκοπος ἐλέγετο διὰ τοῦτο γράφων τῷ Τιμοθέῳ ἔλεγε, Τὴν διακονίαν σου πληροφόρησον, ἐπισκόπῳ ὄντι. "And a bishop was called a deacon; wherefore, writing to Timothy, he saith to him, being a bishop, Fulfil thy deaconship *."

k

Add to this, that there is no word, or designation of any clerical office, but is given to bishops and apostles. The apostles are called 'prophets,' Acts, xiii. The prophets at Antioch were Lucius and Manaen, and Paul and Barnabas; and then they are called 'pastors' too; and indeed, 'hoc ipso,' that they are bishops, they are pastors: "Spiritus Sanctus posuit vos episcopos pascere ecclesiam Dei." Whereupon the Greek scholiast expounds the word 'pastor' to signify bishops, τοὺς τὰς ἐκκλησίας ἐμπεπιστευμένους λέγει, οἷος ὁ Τιμόθεος, οἷος ὁ Τίτος ἦν. And ever since that St. Peter set us a copy in the compellation of the prototype, calling him the "Great Shepherd, and Bishop of our souls," it hath obtained in all antiquity, that pastors and bishops' are coincident, and we shall very hardly meet with an instance to the contrary.

If bishops be pastors, then they are doctors also, for these are conjunct, when other offices which may in person be united, yet in themselves are made disparate; for " God hath given some apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers':" Пouévas nai didaσnáλous. If pastors, then also doctors and teachers. And this is observed by St. Austin. "Pastors and doctors whom you would have me to distinguish, I think are one and the same." For Paul doth not say, 'some pastors, some doctors,' but to pastors he joineth doctors, that pastors might understand it belongeth to their office to teach. The same also is affirmed by Sedulius upon this place.

Thus it was in Scripture; but after the churches were settled, and bishops fixed upon their several sees, then the names also were made distinct, only those names which did design temporary offices did expire, τότε γὰρ τέως ἐκοινώνουν