A treatise of episcopacy confuting by Scripture, reason, and the churches testimony that sort…

Pag. 119, 120, 121. He proveth that Diocesan Bishops are the only Elders of the Church which James adviseth the sick to send for: supposing the City Churches (even of Jerusalem to be yet no bigger than that one Bishop and a Deacon (who yet was not this Visitor of the sick) might do all the Ministerial work. Where I confess he quite outgoeth me in extenuating the Churches in S. James's time. If the Church of Jerusalem had seven Deacons, I will not believe him (pardon the incivility) that they had but one Presbyter. And (pardon me a greater boldness in saying) if he had tried but as much as I have done what it is to do all the Pastoral work for one Parish of 2 or 3000 Persons in public and private, he could not possibly have been of this Opinion. Nor do I think it likely, that when it is a singular Person that James bids send for the Elders of the Church, but that it implieth that the Church where he was had more Elders than one. I confess that if it had been spoken either to Persons, plurally, or of Churches plurally, the phrase might well have signified the single Elders of the several Churches: But to say to each sick man singularly, Let him send for the Elders of the Church singularly) in common use of speech signifieth that there were many Elders for that man to send for in the Church. And whereas he asketh whether a sick man must send for the College of Presbyters? I answer, that a sick man may well send for the Presbyters or Ministers, either one after another, as there is occasion, or more than one at once if need require for his Resolution. If we say to a sick man in London, (send for the Physicians of the City, and let them advise you, &c.) it signifieth that the City hath more Physicians than one, and that he may advise with one, or more at once, o• per vices as he findeth Cause: and no man would speak so to him, if London had but one Physician, and Norwich another, and York another, &c. And when, p. 121.

Pag. 119, 120, 121. He proveth that Diocesane Bishops are the only Elders of the Church which James adviseth the sick to send for: supposing the City Churches (even of Jerusalem to be yet no bigger than that one Bishop and a Deacon (who yet was not this Visiter of the sick) might do all the Ministerial work. Where I confess he quite outgoeth me in extenuating the Churches in S. James's time. If the Church of Jerusalem had seven Deacons, I will not belive him (pardon the incivility) that they had but one Presbyter. And (pardon me a greater boldness in saying) if he had tryed but as much as I have done what it is to do all the Pastoral work for one Parish of 2 or 3000 Persons in publick and private, he could not possibly have been of this Opinion. Nor do I think it likely, that when it is a singular Person that James bids send for the Elders of the Church, but that it implyeth that the Church where he was had more Elders than one. I confess that if it had been spoken either to Persons, plurally, or of Churches plurally, the phrase might well have signified the single Elders of the several Churches: But to say to each sick man singularly, Let him send for the Elders of the Church singularly) in common use of speech signifieth that there were many Elders for that man to send for in the Church. And whereas he asketh whether a sick man must send for the Colledge of Presbyters? I answer, that a sick man may well send for the Presbyters or Ministers, either one after another, as there is occasion, or more than one at once if need require for his Resolution. If we say to a sick man in London, (send for the Physicians of the City, and let them advise you, &c.) it signifieth that the City hath more Physicians than one, and that he may advise with one, or more at once, o per vices as he findeth Cause: and no man would speak so to him, if London had but one Physician, and Norwich another, and York another, &c. And when, p. 121.