A discourse of schism

3dly. It doth not stand (as I take it) in a Diocesan Episcopacy. There are Bishops in Scripture, but no Diocesan ones. There are Presbyters ordained in every City, but no Bishops ordained to be over them. In Thessalonica there were not one, but many [Greek or Hebrew]. 1 Thess. 5.12. The Presidency there was in many, not in one. The Bishops at Philippi, Phil. 1.1. being more than one in one city, were no other than Presbyters. The Presbyters at Ephesus are in express terms called Bishops, Acts 20.17, & 28. St. Peter exhorts the Presbyters to feed the Flock of God, [Greek or Hebrew], acting as Bishops among them, 1 Pet. 5.2. St. Paul would have Titus ordain ⟨p. 15⟩Presbyters in every City, for a Bishop must be so and so. Tit. 1.5, 7. If the Bishop and Presbyter were not here the same, the reason, which must not be imagined, would be inconsequential. There are the qualifying Characters of a Bishop set down in 1 Tim. 3. and in Titus 1.7. but there is not one of them but is requisite in a Presbyter, not one of them peculiar to a Diocesan Bishop. The Scripture Evidence is very clear, that a Bishop and a Presbyter are all one. When Aerius brought some of these Scriptures to prove it, Epiphanius, who calls him Heretic, gives only this poor Answer, That in many Churches there were no Presbyters; but who can believe that at that time there were more Bishops than Presbyters; that, when there were more Bishops in one City, there should be no Presbyters at all there. It is a thing altogether incredible. Clemens, ¹in his Epistle to the Corinthians, makes Bishops and Presbyters all one. Polycarp, in his Epistle to the Philippians, mentions only Presbyters and Deacons. In the Epistle ascribed to Ignatius ad Magnesios, ⟨p. 16⟩