likewise that from Can. 2. is onely a Testimony for the fitnesse and usefulnesse of that custome still retein'd and used in our Church in all Ordinations of Presbyters and Deacons that the Presbyters there present should lay on their hands by the hand of the Bishop and so joyne in the Prayer or benediction but no proofe that a Presbyter might not be ordeined by a Bishop without the presence of such Presbyters I have for a while gone aside from the consideration of S. Hierome's testimony the designed matter of this Section and allowed my selfe scope to take in all the testimonies of Antiquity which are made use of by these Assemblers for the justifying their Ordination of Ministers And I have done it on purpose though a little contrary to my designed Method and brevity because after the publishing of the Dissertations against Blondel I remember I was once told that though it was not necessary yet I might do well to add some Appendix by way of Answer to that one head of discourse concerning Presbyteriall Ordination and the Instances which were objected by him For which reason I have now as neer as I can taken in all in this place which are in their Appendix produced on that head and doe not elsewhere in this briefe reply fall in my way to be answered by me For some others mentioned by D. Blondel I refer the Reader to the learned paines of the Bishop of Dâ—rry in his vindication of the Church of England from the aspersion of Schisme p. 270. c. And so being at last returned into my rode againe This may I hope suffice to have said in the justification of what was done in the Dissertations concerning St. Hierome both to cleare his sense and for the setting the ballance aright betwixt his authority on the one side and the authority of Ignatius on the other betwixt some doubtfull sayings of the former which seemed to prejudice the Doctrine of the Apostles instituting imparity which yet elsewhere he affirmes to be Apostolicall tradition and the many cleare and uncontradicted constant sayings of the latter which are acknowleged to assert it Which one thing if it be not in the Dissertations so done as may satisfie any impartiall Judge that Ignatius in full concord with all is to be heeded on our side more than St. Hierome in some few of his many Testimones can be justly produced against us I shall then confesse my selfe guilty of over-much confidence but if therein I have not erred it is most evident that I need not undertake any farther travaile in this whole matter Sect. VII The Testimonies of Ambrose and Austin Consignare used for consecrating the Eucharist and that belonged to the Bishop when present THere now followes in the next place the passage cited by them p. 133. out of Ambrose on Eph. 4. where to prove that even during the prevalency of Episcopacy 't was not held unlawfull for a Presbyter to ordeine without a Bishop they urge out of St. Ambrose these words Apud Aegyptum Presbyteri consignant si praesens non sit Episcopus In Aegypt the Presbyters consigne if the Bishop be not present And the like out of Austine or whosoever was the Author in Quaest ex utroque Testam Qu. 101. In Alexandria per totam Aegyptum si desit Episcopus consecrat Presbyter In Alexandria and through all Aegypt if the Bishop be wanting the Presbyter consecrates And having done so they adde which words cannot be understood as a defender of Prelacy would have them of the Consecration of the Eucharist For this might be done by the Presbyter praesente Episcopo the Bishop being present but it must be understood either of confirmation or which is more likely of ordination because Ambrose in that place is speaking of Ordination To this I shall briefly reply 1. That it is sure enough granted by the most eminent Presbyterians that these two Books whence these Testimonies are cited were not written either by Ambrose or Austine but by some other Hilarius Sardus saith Blondel and unjustly inserted among their works and then the authority of such supposititious pieces will not be great to over-rule any practice otherwise acknowledged in the Church of God Secondly that the mistakes of Blondel and Salmasius concerning the meaning of the former of these places were so evidently discovered by the second of them the consignant in the one interpreted by consecrat in the other that I conceived it sufficient but to name them For can there be any thing more unquestionable than this that consecrare in antient writers signifies the Consecration of the Eucharist And then if consignare be a more obscure phrase is there any doubt but it must be interpreted by that which is so much more vulgar and plaine and all the circumstances besides being exactly the same in both places what doubt can there be but in both the words are to be understood of the Eucharist Yet because some advantage was by this their misunderstanding sought to the Presbyterians cause they now resolve and insist that it must not be rectified though they know not which to apply it to Confirmation or Ordination and pretend not to produce any Testimony where consecrare is ever used for the latter or consignare for either of them And indeed Blondel and Salmasius were yet more uncertaine for they thought it might also belong to the benediction of Penitents and that as probable as either of the two former And when the truth is rejected thus it is wont to be As for the onely reason which inclines them to confine it to Ordination because Ambrose in that place is speaking of Ordination if the place be review'd it will not be found to have truth in it He speakes immediately before of the severall Ministeriall Acts Preaching and Baptizing adding indeed that Scripta Apostoli non per omnia conveniunt Ordinationi quae nunc in Ecclesia est The writings of the Apostle doe not in all things agree to the Order which is now in the Church There is mention of Ordinatio indeed but that signifies not Ordination as we now use it for ordaining of Ministers but manifestly the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the rule or order used in the Church in severall respects saith he different from what it was in the writings of the Apostle And for their objection against my interpretation that it cannot be understood of consecrating the Eucharist because this the Presbyter might doe when the Bishop was present If they would have taken notice of the many evidences brought by me in that place out of the Antients the Canons of the Apostles Ignatius ad Magnes the 56 Canon of the councell of Laodicaea and Tertullian that the Presbyter might not administer either Sacrament without the Bishop's appointment and distinctly of this Sacrament Non de aliorum quam de Praesidentium manu Eucharistiam sumimus we receive it not from the hands of any but the Praesidents i.
Armagh Some Testimonies out of them The cause of his so inculcating obedience to Bishops Mr. Causabones Testimony considered and the Allegations from the Archbishop of Armagh Three reasons against these Epistles answered No Marriage without the Bishop Of the Reformed Churches Of the Church of Scotland after the first conversion p. 143 Sect. 4. Of Salmasius's conceit that these Epistles were written at the time of Episcopacy first entring the Church p. 163 Sect. 5. Testimonies of Iraeneus The use of Presbyteri for Bishops p. 165 Sect. 5. Testimonies of Tertullian Seniores Majores natâ— for Bishops so in Firmilian p. 169 Sect. 6. S. Jerom's Testimony of Bishops c. by Apostolicall Tradition Consuetudo opposed to Dominica dispositio S. Jerom's meaning evidenced by many other Testimonies to be that Bishops were instituted by the Apostles So by Panormâ—tan also The Testimonies of Isidore c. the Councell of Aquen and of Leo vindicated Of Ischyras's Ordination The testimony of the Synod ad Zurrium and of the 4th Councell of Carthage p. 171 Sect. 7. The Testimonies of Ambrose and Austin Consignare used for consecrating the Eucharist and that belonged to the Bishop when present p. 187 Sect. 8. Of the Châ—repiscopi p. 189 A VINDICATION OF THE Dissertations concerning Episcopacy From the Answers or Exceptions offered against them by the London-Ministers in their Jus Divinum Ministerii Evangelici The INTRODUCTION Of the occasion of this Worke The state of the Controversie The Heads of the Prelatists Plea from Scripture and Antiquity with some Observations assistant to them The considerable concernements of the question BEing advertised from many hands that the Booke called Jus Divinum Ministerii Evangelici which is lately published by some who intitle themselves the Provinciall Assembly of London hath undertaken to consider and confute many passages of the Dissertations three years since published in Latine in defence of Episcopacy against D. Blondell and others I have thought my selfe obliged to examine whether there be any thing objected by them in relation to those Dissertations which may reasonably move me to retract what was there either with diffidence proposed or more confidently asserted by me 2. And having diligently surveyed the whole Booke that I might omit no passage wherein my interests might be in the least concern'd being truly able to affirme from that view that it hath yielded me no one syllable of usefull Exhortation no motive to retract any period or alter any expression in those Dissertations but as farre as I doe perswade my selfe that this Provinciall Synod containes in it Men of judgement and abilities to maintaine the truth and convince gaine-sayers so farre I am forced to assume that what I have written is testified to be Truth and by that priviledge competently secured against all opposers I might herein reasonably acquiesce without farther importuning the Reader or my selfe with impertinent vindications onely trusting and adventuring the whole matter to the judgement of each intelligent Reader who is obliged by all Rules of Justice to compare either by his Memory or by his Eye those passages in this Booke and the Chapters in the Dissertations to which they are confronted 3. But I am againe told that many who have read and are moved by the Arguments and Answers of this Booke and the Authority of a Provinciall Synod are yet disabled to be so just as to examine them by comparing them with the latine Dissertations and that we are fallen upon those times wherein whatsoever is not answered is cried up as unanswerable an humour of which if I might be permitted to receive the fruits I should have no temptation to complaine there being so much a greater part of those Dissertations which was never attempted to be answered I continue still under some seeming obligation to give an exact account of the whole matter as it lies in contest betweene this Provinciall Synod and those Dissertations and I shall hasten to doe it when I have first by way of necessary Introduction premised these two things 4. First the state of the Controversy as it generally lies between us which is this whether the Apostles of Christ when they planted Churches in each City left them in the hands of many to be governed by the Common Councell of those many erecting an equality or parity of severall Rulers in every City to whom all others were subjected and they to none or whether they placed the Superiour power and Authority in some one and subjected all others to him Other consequent differences there are arising from hence and those of such weight and concernment to those with whom I now dispute in case the Truth be not on their sides as will make this returne to their Objections no lesse than a duty of Charity as to Brethren if by the Grace of God they shall judge it reasonable to make that use of it but this is the one Basis of all whether the Apostles planted parity or imparity in the Church many equall Governours in one City or but one in each The former is the Presbyterians interest to defend the latter the Prelatists And so the controversy stands between them to be debated and evinced by such evidences as a matter of Fact is capable of the Right being by both sides acknowledged to follow that Fact i. e. by the Testimonies of those who are fit to be credited in this matter Secondly the briefe heads of the Plea by which I have undertaken to maintaine the Prelatists assertion 1. By Scripture 2. By the Records of the first times the Writings of those who were neerest the Apostles and either affirme what was done by the Apostles or how it stood practiced in the Churches all the World over which were planted by them As for the third way of arguing from the universall consent and practice of all Churches for about 1400. yeares together i. e. from about the yeare 140. till the Reformation this I doe not insist on as I might with all evidence because it is knowne and confest by the Adversaries and all that is by them pretended is that parity and equality being prescribed and practiced by the Apostles soone after their death and quite contrary to their plat-forme Prelacy was introduced into all Churches It being their desire and demand now a little different from what M. Calvin at first proposed to the Churches of Helvetia that all may be reformed and reduced to the state wherein the Apostles left it 6. In the managing the proofes proposed by mee I have used this method which seemed to mee most convincing 1. To insist on some few Testimonies under each head which are sufficient to conclude the matter on the Prelatists side and then to propose some observations which may accord all other places both of Scripture and antient writers with those Testimonies and that conclusion 7. The speciall proofes of Scripture are taken First from the power derived as from God the Father to Christ so from Christ
that one of that name Onesimus was Bishop of Ephesus in the tenth yeare of Trajan wherein Ignatius wrote that Epistle 7. Secondly that by one indication there is some small reason to guess that this Onesimus was then lately come to that dignity I meane Ignatius his words of gratulation to that Church that God had given them the favour to obtaine or have such a Bishop 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 8. Thirdly that according to Epiphanius his setting down the time of John's banishment and visions in the dayes of Claudius there must be above 50 yeares distance between the date of this Epistle of Christ and that of Ignatius and consequently that it is not so likely that Onesimus that was their Bishop in the later should be that very Angel in the former 9. Fourthly that as I can have no cause to consent with Ado in lib. de Fest Apost ad 14. Cal. Mart. that this Onesimus in Ignatius was hee that is mentioned by St. Paul to Philemon so nor to adhere to the Roman Martyrologie that he whom Paul mentions was constituted Bishop of Ephesus after Timothy 10. And therefore fiftly it must be remembred that both the Greeke Menologies and Simeon Metaphrastes who celebrate his memory on March 13. acknowledge not that Onesimus to have been at all Bishop of Ephesus and that others also of the antients make him to have been Bishop of Beraea and martyr'd in Domitian's Reigne and Dorotheas in Synopsi expresly affirmeth that Gaius succeeded Timothy in Ephesus 11. From all which it followes that Onesimus mentioned by Ignatius was some later Bishop of that City who bare that very Ordinary Greeke name and so that his being Bishop of Ephesus no way belongs to that time of the Angel in the Revelation not interferes with their opinion who thinke Timothy to have beene that Angel The appearing incompetibility whereof was it I spppose that brought in here the mention of Onesimus 12. This was here seasonable enough to be confronted to their words in this place and will be of use to be remembred in the processe of their Discourse 13. Thirdly for Polycarp's being Bishop of Smyrna as there is left no place for the doubting of that if either Irenaeus that lived in his time and saw him or if Tertullian who lived not long after and was a curious Antiquary may be believed in their joynt affirmations of a knowne matter of Fact so it is againe no where affirmed by me that hee was the very man to whom that Epistle to the Angel of Smyrna was sent and if that were their meaning they have againe misreported my words 14. All that I had said I thinke was proved irrefragably that in two of those Churches mentioned in the Apocalyps Timothy and Poylcarpe are by Anthentick testimonies affirmed to be constituted Bishops the one by St. Paul the other by St. John and that is a competent argument added to others to inferre that the Angel of each of those Churches was a single person and so a Bishop in the Prelatists not in the Presbyterians notion of the word an assertion which I need not feare will yeild any advantage to the adversaries and so I as briefly commit it to them Section 3. Of the negative Argument from St. John's not using the word Bishop Of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Revelation IN the next place by way of answer to this plea of the Prelatists we are referred to three writings of their party Smectymnuus the Vindication of Smectymnuus the Humble Addresses of the Divines at the Isle of Wight wherein say they these things are fully clearely and satisfactorily handled 2. But it being certaine that every one of these three was publisht some yeares before the Dissertations I should thinke it strange that the particulars there insisted on by me should by divination be thus answered before their conception being able truly to professe that though I am not unwilling to make use of any mans aid for defending truth yet none of those writings to which any of those three were given in answer were by me made use of in those compositions 3. But we are superseded the trouble of examining any of these three by the leave that is craved to borrow from them what may be usefull for the turne and then in like manner I shall more willingly receive from these what shall appeare to answer or prejudge our plea than undertake new troubles in farther unnecessary search of it 4. First then they desire it may be considered that S. John the Penman of the Revelation doth neither in it nor in any of his other writings so much as upon the by I suppose for the Printer failes me name Bishop Hee names the name Presbyter frequently in the Revelation yea when he would set out the office of those who are neerest the throne of Christ in his Church Rev. 4. he calls himselfe a Presbyter Ep. 2. And whereas in S. John's dayes some new expressions were used in the Christian Church which were not in Scripture as the Christian Sabbath began to be called the Lords day and Christ himselfe the Word now both these are found in the writings of St John And it is strange to us that the Apostle should mention a new phrase and not mention a new Office erected by this time as our Brethren say in the Church especially if wee consider that Polycarpe as it related was made Bishop by him And no doubt if hee had been made Bishop in a prelaticall sense we should have found the name Bishop in some of his writings who lived so long as to see Episcopacy setled in the Church as our Adversaries would make us believe 5. We are now to consider what degree of conviction or Argument to the prejudice of our pretensions can be fetcht from this large consideration And first it is most evident and notorious among all Artists that an argument from Authority cannot conclude negatively that there were no Bishops in St John's time because St. John doth not mention Bishops It is the same way of arguing as if they should conclude that there was no God in the time of writing the Canonicall Chapters of Hester because God is not found once mentioned in those Chapters And yet of this inartificiall kinde is the whole discourse of this Paragraph the premisses barely negative throughout all the consideration And so nothing is conclusible from it to the prejudice of us or benefit of our adversaries 6. Secondly all that this consideration pretends to is terminated in the bare name of Bishop that is it which they pretend is not to be found in St. John But 1. They knew that the word Angel is oft in St John and by us contested by the singularity of the person one Angel in each Church and other Characters to conclude the Office of Bishop as irrefragably as if the word Bishop were there specified Nay of this wee have a competent experience that if the word Bishop had been found there
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for or in the name and authority of Christ and againe wee pray you 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which we well render in Christs stead as his proxies for to Embassadors are which being there applied to S. Paul an Apostle and to Timothy one imployed by him immediatly to preach and plant the faith and after to governe in the Church may be proportion belong to the Bishops their successors peculiarly 4. Thirdly that as the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies a Messenger or Nuntio so the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Apostle according to the origination of it from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be sent signifies also without any considerable difference but yet is never thought fit either in Scripture or in the style of the Church to be applied to ordinary Ministers but onely to those sent immediately by Christ as he by his Father to plant and rule Churches and to those who first succeeded them or were imployed by them in that great office 5. But that which wholly frustrates the designe of the consideration is this that the singularity of the person one Angel in each of the seven Churches is all that wee argue from in this matter For as to the power and authority in each Church That is certainly pretended to and not declin'd by the Presbyterian as well as the Prelatist the onely Question is whether it be placed in one over the rest or in more than one ruling together in common and from the style of Christs Epistle to the Angel of the Church of Ephesus and the like in each of the seven wee thinke we conclude regularly that it was one it being certaine that the singular number is not the duall or plurall and that Angel is a person not an aggregate body or multitude 7. And to the same purpose againe wee conclude not from the mention of the Starres not from their light or shining but from their number but seven in all no more than there are Churches i. e. one onely in each Church And we know there is difference betweene a Star and an Asterisme or constellation one single light and a conjunction of many And accordingly Mr. Brightman that is resolved not to finde this truth in that Text is forced to deale plainely and to tell us that the Epistles are not each of them sent to any one Angel but to the Colledge of Pastors nec uni alicui Angelo mittuntur sed toti ut ita dicam collegio Pastorum in Apoc. c. 2. 1. which being sufficiently contrary to the evidence of the Text which reads 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the Angel in the singular he thinkes fit to adde his reason for it Non enim unus erat Angelus Ephesi sed plures nec inter istos aliquis Princeps for there was not 〈◊〉 Angel of Ephesus but many nor any one among those principall or chiefe which is the begging of the Question or proveing his assertion onely by asserting it whereas Beza finding himselfe more prest by the force of the place is forced to render it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the Angel i. e. to the president quem nimirum oportuit inprimis de his rebus admoneri who was in the first place to be admonished of these things 8. What the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the use of the Antient Church properly signifies is showne at large out of Justin Martyr Dionysius Bishop of Corinth Marcellus Ancyranus and the Councell of Ephesus Dissert 4. c. 17. directly the same that we meane now by Bishop But that I pretend not to thinke Beza meant by it his Prolepses and espoused Principles leading him another way All that I observe from the citation is that by the singularity of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Angel not Angels he was forced to confesse a single person to be understood which is contrary to Mr. Brightman and those that comprehend a Colledge of Presbyters under the title which being yeilded I doubt not but our other evidences already produced which must not be at every turne repeated from the Catalogue of Bishops in the Church of Ephesus c. and the judgement of the Vniversal Church concerning those single persons will conclude them indeed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not in Beza's notion but in Justin Martyrs who was much a more competent judge i. e. the very Bishops which we pretend them to be And truly I cannot discerne any weake part which may hazard being counted ridiculous in this way of arguing Section VII Of their exception to our arguing from Symbols Of Rishop and Elder being the same THe last Consideration now remains in these words These titles of Stars and Angels are mysterious and metaphoricall It is said Rev. 1. 20. The Mysterie of the seven Stars And certainly it cannot be safe or solid to build the structure of Episcopacie by Divine Right upon mysterious and metaphoricall denominations Theologia Symbolica non est argumentativa Especially if we consider that there are abundance of cleere texts that make Bishops and Presbyters to be one and the same and it cannot be praise-worthy for any men though never so learned in the esteem of the world to oppose certain allegorical and mysterious titles to so many expresse testimonies of Scripture 2. To this the Answer will be satisfactory though it should be but briefe that we doe not found our argument in an allegorie For 1. though the word Stars applyed to the Governors of Churches be onely figuratively so applyed yet the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if the Authors of this consideration may be believed in that which immediately preceded signifies not an Angel from Heaven or incorporeal substance but a Messenger or Embassadour such as say they all Ministers are And agreeably in that which is here annexed to prove the allegorical or mystical phrases from Rev. 1. 20. the Mistery of the seven Starres it is evident that onely the word Starres is Symbolical or Mystical and as evident that the Angels are not for it is in the explicating and not in the forming of the figure that the Angels of the Churches are mentioned as the things which are signified by the mistery of the Starres as the Churches themselves by the Lamps and therefore as it would be absur'd to say that a symbol is explicated by a symbol one mystery by another or proportionably that the Churches by which the Lamps are exprest are a mystical allegorical phrase so it will be as unreasonable to affirme of the Angels that they are a mistery or allegorie because of the Starres it is affirmed that they are such when indeed the word Angel is the interpretation and unfolding of the mysterie which is as far from being the mistery as the light is from being darknesse which it expells out of the horizon and is purposely sent by God to doe so 3. But then secondly 't is yet more manifest that if the word Angel were here used
And these Presbyters are called Bishops and were all of them Stars of the same magnitude and Angels of the same order without a difference or distinction 2. But this is a way of proving a thing which is denyed by another which they know is equally denyed by him against whom they dispute and therefore that argument can be of no force with us 3. 'T is most true indeed what they begin with that the Church of Ephesus was a collective body for so 't is certaine every Church is whether governed by one or more Rulers But the Church is not the Angel any more than the candlestickes are the Stars but punctually distinguished from them Rev. 1. 20. But this I suppose was a mistake hastily fallen from them and I shall not pursue it any farther 4. Their argument I conceive depends upon the plurality of Elders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which were at Ephesus Act. 20. when Paul takes his leave of them and calls them Bishops But to this they know I have answered clearly that as in other places of Scripture so in that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elders being all one with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bishops denote not the many Presbyters of the one City of Ephesus but the many Bishops of that and other Cities of Asia which at that time by S. Paul's summons sent to Ephesus the chiefe Metropolis of Asia were called and met together at Miletus 5. To this purpose Irenaeus is a witnesse beyond exception who speaking of these Elders or Bishops addes ab Epheso proximis civitatibus convocatos esse that they were assembled from Ephesus and the next Cities in which as the faith was planted as well as in Ephesus even in all Asia so there is no reason to doubt but there were Bishops in them as well as in Ephesus seven such Churches we know are here mentioned in the Revelation and that Paul was as carefull to take his leave of them as many as could conveniently come to Miletus in his hasty progresse as of the Bishop of Ephesus hee is justly deemed to have been 6. Other arguments and authorities I need not here accumulate for this notion of Elders Act. 20. because here is no appearance of reason offered to prove their or impugne our Assertion This perhaps will be afterward attempted and then I shall as occasion requires farther enlarge In the meane it sufficeth that it yet no way appeares that Ephesus was governed by many Presbyters and not by one Bishop and therefore this second offer of reason is as deficient as the first to prove the Angel of that Church to have been a collective body Section X. Of expressing a number by singulars A Church by a Candlestick Of the seven Angels Rev. 8. THeir third reason is because It is usuall with the Holy Ghost not onely in other Bookes of Scripture but in this very Booke of the Revelation in mysterious and prophetick writings and visionall representations such as this of the Starres and Golden â—Candlestick is to expresse a number of things or persons in singulars And this in visions is the usuall way of Representation of things a thousand persons making up one Church is represented by one Candlestick many Ministers making up one Presbytery by one Angel Thus Rev. 8. 2. It is said that John saw seven Angels which stood before God By these seven Candlesticks I suppose it should be seven Angels Dr. Reynolds doth not understand seven individuall Angels but all the Angels For there are no seven individuall Angels but all the Angels For there are no seven individuall Angels that stand before God but all doe Dan 7. there are many more instances brought in the Bookes forementioned 2. To this third Reason I have no obligation or notice to give credit any farther than the evidences perswade for many of which though we are referred to Smectymnuus c. yet having received promise from these that they would borrow a few things from those others I shall with reason hope that what they have upon choise borrowed leaving as they say much more behind is the most satisfactory and solid of any thing by them produced and consequently if there be no force in these instances to oppugne our conclusion we shall not expect to finde more convincing ones by travailing farther and gathering up out of those dispersions what they have refused to take up and offer to us 3. The thing they would prove is that 't is usuall with the Holy Ghost in this as in other mysterious prophetick Bookes to expresse a number of things or persons by singulars Their proofes are but three and the first is of no force because the word Church denotes a singular thing as well as Candlestick that represents it for though a thousand men make up one Church yet one Church is but one thing considered as a Church and proportionably as one Candlestick in the singular is set to denote each Church so there are seven Candlesticks to represent the seven Churches 4. As for the second that of the Angels that that signifies many Ministers that cannot be offered as a proofe being it selfe the matter of the question And indeed though Church be a collective body and so one Church is knowne to consist of many men yet Angel is not of that nature one Angel neither signifies many men nor many Angels 5. And whereas the parallel is set betwixt the word Candlestick and the word Angel that they each are singular words by which multitudes are represented that is a mistake for the parallel lyes betwixt Church and Angel and on the other side betwixt Candlestick and Starre as appeares Rev. 1. 20. and both these are individual things the Church an individual Church and there be seven such individual Churches and the Angel an individual Angel and there be seven such individual Angels and there can be no more pretense that one Angel should signifie many Ministers than that one Church should signifie many Congregations 6. Lastly for the third proofe that of seven Angels Rev. 8. 2. if that were granted to Doctor Reynold's authority that the seven Angels there signifies all the Angels yet would it not at all contribute to the proofe of the point in hand which is that many shall be signified by a singular for we know that seven are not a singular but the custome indeed being ordinary to use a certaine definite number for an uncertaine or indefinite and the septenary being a perfect number and so fittest for the turne 't is more tolerable that the number of seven may represent some greater number one plural a larger plural than that a singular one should doe so 7. And yet secondly there is no great reason to doubt but that the seven Angels are indeed very seven Angels and no more This I collect 1. from the seven Trumpets that were given them ver 2. and the specifying them by that Character the seven Angels which had the seven Trumpets ver
part of a Ruling Presbytery which their brethren that have not those Ambitions are farre from thinking to have any Divine Stamp upon it I shall have given an account of the unskilfulnesse of their Reproaches as well as of the invalidity of their Answers 10. As for the feare which their Discourse on this matter suggests to their more moderate brethren that if a Jus Divinum be stampt on Archbishops and Primates and Patriarchs they may be forced by the same proportion to put a Divine stamp upon the Pope himselfe I perswade my selfe that I have given the ingenious reader a satisfactory account of the inconsequence hereof in a Discourse of Schisme to which I shall refer him if he need or desire farther trouble or direction in this businesse Section XIX Of Division into Parishes and Vnion into Diocesses Of Diocesan Bishops in the Apostles dayes Elders in every Church Act. 14. Elders of the Church Act. 20. That place vindicated from exception AFter all this they adde a fourth whether Answer or suppletory Consideration for the conclusion of this Discourse concerning the Asian Angels and I shall follow them to that more cheerfully because it lookes like a conclusion 2. It is this That it can never be provid that these Asian Angels were Bishops in a Praelaticall sense much lesse Arch-Bishops and Metropolitanes For it is believed upon all parts that believers in great Cities were not divided into set and fixt Congregations and parishes till long after the Apostles dayes and that Parishes were not united into Dioceses till 260. years after Christ And therefore sure we are that there could not be Diocesane Churches and Diocesane Bishops formerly so called in the Apostles dayes These Angels were Congregationall not Diocesan In the beginning of Christianity the number of Believers even in the greatest Cities were so few that they might well meet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the same place And these were called the Chuâ—ch of the City and therefore to ordaine Elders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are all one in Scripture 3. To the praeface of this conclusion that it cannot be proved it is againe very sufficient to answer that when a proposition hath already been proved so farre that no answer hath been rendred which at all satisfies or invalidates the force of the proofes it is very unlike Artists to say that it cannot be proved Nay although some inconvenience were producible which would presse our assertion yet the old rule would require it's place incommodum non solvit argumentum the mention of an inconvenience insuing doth not take off the force of an argument 4. But we need not that warinesse here the reason which is here annext to prove that it cannot be proved is of no force against us For 1. as Congregations and Parishes are synonimous in their style so I yeild that Believers in great Cities were not at first divided into Parishes while the number of the Christians in a City was so small that they might well assemble in the same place and so needed no partitions or divisions 5. But what disadvantage is this to us who affirme that one Bishop not a College of Presbyters presided in this one Congregation and that the Believers in the Region and Villages about did belong to the care of that single-Bishop of the City-church May not these be ruled by a Bishop as well before as after the division into Parishes Or is this division more necessary to the Government by one Bishop in each City than to the Government of more Presbyters in every City In all reason the division of this one into severall Parishes should make Presbyters more necessary after than before such division that each Parish might have one Presbyter to officiate among them in things of daily use and upon that account I suppose it was that when the number of Believers was so farre increased that all the Christians of a City could not meet commodiously in one place and when the Regions and Villages so abounded with Proselytes that in respect of them also it was necessary then the Bishop of each City thought fit to const tute Presbyters in our moderne notion of them many in every City and many in every Region one in every Village though as yet the word Parish in our moderne sense was not come into the World 6. And so this is farre from being Argumentative against us it is rather usefull to confirme what is asserted by us that it is against the whole Scheme which the Scriptures or first writers give us of Churches to imagine that in every City there was by the Apostles a College of Presbyters constituted when as they agree to assure us a Bishop and his Deacon were sufficient at the first so thin Plantations 7. So againe when they take it for granted that Parishes were not united into Dioceses till 260. yeares after Christ I shall aske 1. whether they were sooner divided into Classes c. and if not what they have gained to their Jus Divinum by this observation 8. But then secondly 't is cleare that there might be Dioceses before this division into Parishes in our moderne notion For what is a Diocesâ— but a Church in a City with the Suburbs and Territorie or Region belonging to it And this certainly might be and â—emaine under the Government of a single Bishop as well before as after any more minute distributions into such as we now call Parishes 9. For it is one thing for the Church of this City to be divided from the Church of every other City another thing for the same Church to be divided into many Assembles The first is it which is required for the setting up of Government and of any such Church so bounded there may be a Bishop and that whole Church shall be his Diocese and so he a Diocesaâ— Bishop though as yet this Church be not subdivided into more severall Assemblies 10. And therefore when they adde that there could not be Diocesan Churches and Bishops formerly so called in the Apostles dayes unlesse they have some little aequivocation in the word Diocesan It is most certaine they have no reason on which to found their confidence For that there was a Church in each City and it's territory howsoever governed by one or more is most certaine and equally affirmed by them and us and equally their interest and ours that it be affirmed As for the use of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that hath oft varied and hath sometimes been of a larger sometimes of a narrower signification and so hath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the originall of our Parish also but I hope our contentions must not be alwayes about words when the matter is sufficiently agreed on among us and the words sufficiently explained to expresse that matter 11. And therefore when they adde these Angels were congregationall not Diocesan the reply is obvious they were every of them Angels of a Church in a City having authority over
to discerne the word Church in the singular without any addition of Ephesus or the like which restraines it in all the examples there produced to be appliable to a farre larger body than the Church of one City and consequently be quit from all obligation of making the Elders of the Church Act. 20. 17. the Elders of the one City of Ephesus 45. There is little doubt I suppose but the Church of the whole World consisting of many Churches as the parts thereof may be and is in Scripture called the Church in the singular and so certainly may the Church of a Nation or a Province especially if it be united together under one Primate or Metropolitane as it is certaine the Churches and Cities neer Ephesus nay over all Asia were according to the plaine words of St. Chrysostome who when others affirme of Timothy that he was by Paul ordained Bishop of the Metropolis of Epheâ—us expresseth the same thing thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is manifest that Timothy had a Church committed to him or indeed an intire Nation that of Asia The like is ordinarily observable of Crete a whole Island with an hundred Cities in it in each of which Titus was appointed to ordeine a Bishop or Elder which yet is styled in the subscription of the Epistle to Titus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Church of Crete and the subscription never questioned upon that score by any that it spake improperly herein 46. And consequently there can be no harshnesse in this interpretation Paul sent to Ephesus and call'd the Elders of the Church to come to him to Miletus and in his Oration addrest to them called them Bishop of the flock and of the Church of God meaning them singular praefects of severall Cities of the Church of Asia especially of those which were neerest Ephesus the chiefe Metropolis of the whole Nation 47. And so much in answer to that Objection in defence of their argument from the Elders of Ephesus as they call them 48. Another proofe of the same is there added Pag. 85. Thus The Syriack translation reads it he sent to Ephesus and called the Elders of the Church of Ephesus so Hierome Presbyteros Ecclesiae Ephesinae so concilium Aquisgranense 49. What authority St Hierome's testimony is to carry with us in this matter hath been elsewhere largely shewed and we may hereafter have farther occasion to declare it and our reasons of it At the present it is willingly confest that St. Hierome on Tit. 1. doth indeavour to prove that in Scripture Bishop and Presbyter is the same and from him Isidore Hispalensis de officiis Eccl. l. 2. hath the same and both have according to that prolepsis changed the words of the Text in the Acts and instead of what there we reade sent to Ephesus and called the Elders of the Church they read sent to Ephesus and called the Elders of the same Church expressing themselves to meane of the Church of Ephesus And the councell of Aken Aquisgranense having transcribed nine Chapters from Isidore verbatim consequently doe the like So that the authority of Isidore and that councell being as great as St. Hierome can make it from whom evidently it proceeds may yet be allowed to yeild to the farre greater authority of Polycarp's auditor Irenaeus who hath sufficiently cleared it to the contrary 50. As for the Syriack tanslation it is not here recited exactly accordingly to the truth For in that thus the words lie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And from Miletus he sent and called for the Elders of the Church of Ephesus where is but one mention of Ephesus not two as is here suggested from the translation that it reades he sent to Ephesus and called the Elders of the Church of Ephesus The short of it is Ephesus being but once named in that verse the Greeke placeth it in the begining 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from Miletus he sent to Ephesus and this being the Originall must certainly over-rule all translations and accordingly all translations but one to read it onely the Syriack hath mis-placed the word Ephesus put it in the later part of the period quite against all Syntaxis and for doing so are here cited and their testimony made use of to assist Presbytery when the manifest truth in the Originall and by all other translations acknowledged would not allow them any the least advantage 51. After they had produced these two arguments to prove that the Church in the City was governed in the Apostles days by a Common-councell of Presbyters the Reader would hardly expect that which now next followes in these words From all this we gather that the Asian Angels were not Diâ—cesan Bishops but congregationall Presbyters seated each of them in one Church not any of them in more than one 52. This conclusion as the words lie consists of two parts 1. That each of these Asian Angels under the title of Congregationall Presbyters was seated in one Church This if it were meant as the words sound were the granting to us all that we contend and would hardly be reconciled with the third observation that the Church in the City was governed by the common councell of Presbyters For sure each of those Presbyters is not a common councell But I rather believe they have not so soone disclaimed their praemisses and therefore that it is more reasonable to interpret their words by their principles than their meaning by their words and so that by congregationall Presbyters they meant so many Colleges of such Presbyters seated each of them i. e. each of those Colleges in one Church And if that be their conclusion I must acknowledge it to accord perfectly with their praemisses which being already answered there remaines no force in the conclusion 53. And for the second part that not any of them was seated in more than one understanding it againe as the words sound it is no way contrary to our pretensions for we doe not thinke that the Angel of Ephesus was seated in Smyrna or in any Church but that of Ephesios and the territory thereof and although as that was a Metropolis other Cities were under it and so other Bishops subordinate to the Bishop of Ephesus yet was not any other City the Seat of that Metropolitane but onely Ephesus whereof he takes his denomination as although Rochester be under the Metropolis of Canterbury yet the Archbishop of Canterbury is not seated at Rochester but some other Bishop affixt to that City and Diocese As for any other meaning of it proportionable to that which we were faine to affixe to the former I confesse my selfe ignorant what it can tend to For it is as if they should say not any councell of Presbyters was seated in more Churches than one Which is as if they should say no one body is in severall places And I know no Prelatist that either directly or by consequence hath affirmed it is 54. What remaines in the last Paragraph of this Chapter
be communicated to the Colossians and the Epistle of the Church of Jerusalem to the Church of Antioch did belong and was communicated to all the Churches of Syria and Cilicia Act. 16. 4. And then all that the immediate subjoyning of the Deacons in that place will conclude is onely this which is farre from yeilding the Presbyterians any profit that as Epiphanius saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Churches being but newly planted there were not Presbyters as yet constituted among them onely a Bishop with one Deacon or more in each City in like manner as it was at Jerusalem Act. 6. where after James's assumption to the Bishoprick which the Ecclesiasticall writers tell us of the seven Deacons are soone instituted no Presbyters being created in the middle betwixt the Bishop and them that either Scripture or antient Record informe us of And Clemens St. Pauls fellow Labourer mentions it as the generall practice that the Apostles preaching through Regions and Cities constituted their first fruits into Bishops and Deacons of those which should come in to the faith Thus farre is this from being a forced interpretation being perfectly regular and conformable to what we read of those times out of the best and antientest Records of them And if in any circumstance we should be lyable to mistake yet for the maine the Reader will hardly thinke it possible when he remembers this very Church of the Philippians to be one of those expressely named by Tertullian among whom in his time Apostolorum Cathedrae suis adhuc locis praesidebantur The Chaires of the Apostles were yet extant praesiding in their due places which concludes some Bishop or singular praefect to have succeeded the Apostles in this Church as in those other Thessalonica c. and by Theodoret whose authority is most used against us in this matter to prove that the Bishops were Presbyters here Epaphroditus is expresly affirmed to be that Bishop The next place is that of 1 Tim. 3. 1 2. If any man desire the Office of a Bishop he coveteth a good worke A Bishop therefore must be blamelesse where there is no reason of doubting but the Bishop is the singular praefect or Governour of the Church For the onely appearance of the contrary being againe as in that to the Philippians the immediate subjoyning of Deacons and their qualifications v. 8. that presently vanisheth if againe we remember the observation of Epiphanius which he had out of the most antient Records and was found exactly conformable to the expresse words of Clemens Romanus the contemporary of the Apostles that at the beginning of the Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 before the government was compleate in all the Offices the Apostles and Apostolicall persons placed in the Church by them such as Timothy to whom here he gives the directions created no more but a Bishop and Deacon one or more in each Church the present state of things neither requiring nor being well capable of any more in respect of the paucity of the Christians to be governed or instructed and of those which were fit to be made Presbyters And although Theodoret againe with some few others interpret the place of Presbyters yet 't is as evident he doth it not to the disadvantage of Bishops adding in the same place that the Bishops especially should observe these Lawes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as those which had atteined to a greater honour Meanewhile S. Chrysostome interprets it distinctly of Bishops as I have done and in that notion of Bishops which severs them from Presbyters such as governe in each City and addeth the qualifications to be such as being spoken of Bishops 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doe agree to Presbyters also And accordingly Theophylact interprets it of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the President and Ruler without any mention of Presbyters There remaines but one place and that of the very same nature with this last and must certainly be regulated by it Tit. 1. 7. For a Bishop must be blamelesse as the steward of God answerable to that notion of the word Bishop in the Old Testament for the Ruler set over the House of the Lord 2 Kin. 11. 18. i. e. the Steward to whom the Keyes of the House were committed Isa 22. 22. That this is the singular Bishop in every City signified before v. 5. by the Elders which Titus was left in Crete to constitute is the joynt affirmation of St. Chrysostome Theophylact and Oecumenius on those words of v. 5. Elders in every City 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. By Elders he there meanes Bishops as in the Epistle to Timothy appointing them to be constituted in every â—ity for he would not have the whole Island administred by one but that every â—ity should have it's proper Pastor or Bishop that so the labour might be the lighter and the care more exact In Crete there were certainly many Cities Eusebius mentions an hundred of all which saith he Titus was made Bishop by St. Paul that under him saith Theodoret he might ordeine Bishops to which Chrysostome and Theophylact adde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that he might have power to judge or censure those Bishops as a Metropolitan and Primaâ—e over them There is now no other place wherein the word Bishop is used and by this briefe view of these I hope the first proposition is competently rescued from meriting the censure of Paradox whether that signifie novell or strange this being so conformable both to the nature and use of the word to the tradition of the antient Church and the importance of each Scripture where it is used that Bishop should signifie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the singular Pastor or Governour in each City or Church Section III. Of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elder NOw to the second proposition which pretended not to so much positivenesse but is set down in a greater latitude of defining that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 either constantly signifies a Bishop also or else commonly a Bishop though sometimes but most rarely a Presbyter Of this I shall now need to praemise but these few things First that the nature of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 commonly rendred 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elder in the Old Testament doth denote most properly and signifie most constantly as in all Languages the word is found vulgarly to doe a Ruler or Governour This is so largely deduced and demonstrated in the Annotation on Act. 11. 30. that I shall not indeavour farther to manifest it Secondly that as in some places of the New Testament the word is necessarily to be understood of Bishops so in every other place it is very fitly capable of that interpretation This is againe so particularly evidenced to the Latine Reader Diss 4. c. 19 20 21 22. and to the English Reader Annot. on Act. 11. b. and 14. a. that I cannot deeme it reasonable to tire my selfe farther with
their quarrelling with it leave out this latter part of Presbytery and Deacons they cannot finde in their hearts to quarrell or accuse him for bidding them follow the Presbytery as the Apostle the onely crime was to bid them follow the Bishop not as Christ in the dative i. e. as they follow Christ but as Christ followes his Father the onely pâ—acular offence to recommend unity with and obedience to the Bishop But that by the way It followes in the place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let no Man without the Bishop doe ought which belongs to the Church Let that be accounted a firme Eucharist which is done by the Bishop or him whom the Bishop shall permit Where the Bishop appeares there let the multitude be as where Christ is there is the Catholick Church It is not lawfull without the Bishop i. e. as before without commission from him either to Baptize or Administer the Eucharist but what he approves of thus in these publick Ministrations that is well pleasing to God that it may be saâ—e and firme whatsoever is done It doth well that men know God and the Bishop as their Ruler under God with whom his truth is by the Apostles deposited he that honours the Bishop is honoured by God he that doth any thing clancularly without him serves the Devill performes a very acceptable service to him For so in a very eminent manner the Hereticks of that age the Gnosticks did which secretly infused their devilish Leaven and deadly poyson into mens hearts by which they took them quite from Christ but could not have done so successefully if this Holy Martyr's counsell here had been taken What inconvenience can be imagined consequent to our affirming that Ignatius was the author of these words I confesse not to comprehend Of this there is no question but that it is the ordinary Language of the antient Church and accounted necessary in an eminent degree to preserve unity and truth in the Church and to hold up the authority of Governours among all 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Presbyters and Deacons must doe nothing without the minde of the Bishop Can. Apost 40. and the reason is added 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for he is intrusted with the people of the Lord So in the 56. Canon of Laodicaea 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Presbyters must do nothing without the minde of the Bishop and so in the Councell of Arles Can. 19. The Presbyters must doe nothing in any Diocesse sine Episcopi sententia without the Bishops minde and sine authoritate literarum ejus without authority of his Letterâ— All that is here offer'd by them to make the like words in Ignatius a competent charge upon which to throw away the whole volume of Epistles is onely this If this be true Doctrine what shall become of all the Reformed Churches especially the Church of Scotland which as John Major saith lib. 2. Histor de Gestis Scotorum c 2. was after it's first conversion to the Christian faith above 230 yeares without Episcopall Government To this double question I might well be allowed to render no answer It being certainly very extrinsecall to the Question in hand which is onely this whether Ignatius wrote or wrote not those Epistles to examine what shall become of the Reformed Churches c. It were much more reasonable for mee to demand of the Objectors who suppose their Presbyteriall platforme as that is opposed to Episcopall to be setled in the Church by Divine Right If this Doctrine be true what did become of all those Primitive Churches all the World over which they confesse departed from this modell and set up the contrary and so of all the succeeding ages of the Church for so many 100 yeares till the Reformation and since that also of all the other Churches which doe not thus farre imitate Mr. Calvin casting out the Government by Bishops Is it not as reasonable that they should be required to give a faire and justifiable account of their dealing with and judging post factum of all these as I should be obliged to reconcile Ignatius his speech concerning his present age with the conveniencies of the Reformed Churches which he could neither see nor be deemed to speak of nor consequently to passe judgement on them by divination What they were guilty of which secretly infused their poyson into Men and Women in his age and would not let the Bishop the Governour of the Church be the Judge of their Doctrines and â—ractices he here tells us viz. That they performed service to the Devill in stealing Mens hearts from Christ But what crime it was in those of Corinth and through all Achaia to turne their Bishops out of their places 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to cast them out of their Episcopacy their Office and Ministration this he tells them not in that place Clemens Romanus had done it competently in his Epistle As for the particular case of those Reformed Churches which have done more then so not onely cast out their present Governours but over and above utterly cast off the Government it selfe there had been I confesse a great deale said both in this and other places of Ignatius and many other Antient Writers who yet never foretold these dayes abundantly sufficient to have restreined them from so disorderly proceedings if they would have pleased to have hearkned to such moderate counsells But having not done so Ignatius hath gone no farther he is only a witnesse against them he undertooke not the Office of a â—udge so farre beyond his Province hath pronounced no sentence upon them And to proceed one degree farther to the successors of those in the Reformed Churches as many as are justly blameable for treading in their Leaders steps though I may truely say they have as little taken that Holâ— Martyrs advise and more than so that they have retaind a considerable corruption in their Churches and that they should doe well if now they know how to restore themselves to that medell which they find every where exemplified in Ignatius yet till they shall have done so I know that they are exactly capable of being concerâ—d in any part of these words last cited from Ignatius For they that have no Bishop at all cannot be required to doe nothing without consulting with the Bishop They are justly to be blamed as farre as they are guilty that they have no Bishop but then that is their crime and they are to reforme it as soone as they please but that being supposed this of not consulting the Bishop while they have none is no new crime nor liable of it selfe to the censure of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here which was affixt to those that had Bishops and would not have their Doctrines examined by that standard of which they were the Depositaries And this is as much as is needfull to be said in this place for that first inconvenience affixt to Ignatius's words As for the other
the Church of Scotland in it's first conversion the matter againe is so remote from the taske we have now in hand for the vindicating the Authority of Ignatius's volumne of Epistles and withall so uncertainly set downe by Authors that it would be unseasonable to engage farre in so darke a part of History so impertinently In briefe therefore though I have not John Major by me to consult yet I conceive I shall not guesse amisse at the grounds and consequently at the truth and weight of his assertion Joannes Jordanus was of opinion that Paschasius a Sicilian prima Christianae pietatis rudimenta mandante P. Victore in Scotia nuntiavit first preacht the Christian Faith in Scotland by the command of Pope Victor And this was about the year 203. And Bede saith that in the eight yeare of Theodosius Junior that is about the yeare 431 Palladius ad Scotos in Christum credentes a Pontifice Romanae Ecclesiae Coelestino primus mittitur Episcopus Palladius was by Celestine Bishop of Rome sent first Bishop to the Scots that believed And the distance betwixt these two termes being 228. yeares this I conceive the ground work of John Major's affirmation here cited of the 230. yeares wherein that Church after itâ—s first conversion remained without Episcopall Government But first it is to be noted here that the saying of Jordanus of Paschasius in Victor's dayes is no more than this that he preached the Gospell there prima rudimenta nuntiavit declared the first rudiments there and as it followes in Demster tyrocinia fidei fecit laid the grounds of Christianity among them And that might be done and soone moulder away againe and never come to so much maturity as either to have Bishops or Presbyters constituted among them And secondly though Bede say that Palladius was sent to them Episcopus primus their first Bishop yet neither he nor any other affirmes that they were formerly ruled by a Presbytery or so much as that they had any Presbyter among them Nay thirdly Demster reports it from Jordanus but slightly Joh. Jordanus putavit it was the conceit or opinion of that author And that which Bozius tells us will take off much from the creditablenesse of that Opinion Traditur in Scotiâ quae tunc erat Hibernia Christi cultum disseminatum eodem tempore quo in Britanniâ sub annum Christi 203. Victore sedente They say that the faith of Christ was disseminated in Scotland which was then Ireland at the same time that it was in Britanny about the yeare 203. in the time of Victors Papacy By this it appeares that the conceit of Jordanus belonged to Ireland not to Scotland Ireland being antiently called Scotia as in Bede we finde Scotorum qui Hiberniam insulam Britanniae proximam incolunt the Scots which inhabit Ireland and Gentes Scotorum quae Australibus Hiberniae partibus morabantur the Scots which inhabited the Southerne parts of Ireland and that which is now Scotland was then styled Nova Scotia to distinguish it from the other And it is worth remembring that Marianus the Scotch Antiquary had no knowledge of this conversion of Scotland under Victor nor is there any shew of it in Bede who tells us of the latter Nay it is yet more evident by Prosper that 't was a conversion from barbarous to Christian which is spokon of in Coelestines time and that the Faith was planted and the Bishop constituted there together Venerabilis memoriae Pontifex ab hoc codem morbo Britannias liberavit ordinato Scotis Episcopo dum Romanam insulam studet servare Catholicam fecit etiam barbaram Christianam Popâ— Coelestine freed Britaine from Pelagianisme and ordained a Bishop for the Scots and so while he indeavoured to keepe a Romane Island within the bounds of the Catholick Faith he also made a barbarous Island Christian Which as it differs somewhat from Bedes expression of Palladius's being sent ad credentes to believers so it gives us occasion to propose that which may reconcile these seeming differences viz. 1. That Christanity was planted in Scotland before Caelestine's time derived to them most probably from their Neighbours the Britaines here with whom they are known to have agreed in the keeping of Easter contrary to the custome of the Romane Church and so cannot be deemed to have received the first Rudiments of their conversion from Rome Then secondly that this Plantation was very imperfect differing little from Barbarisme and so reputed by Prosper till the comming of Bishop Palladius among them Thirdly that even after that they retain'd the usage of Easter contrary to the Romane custome which still referres to some rude conversion of theirs before Palladius By all this it is cleared to us what is to be thought of Major's affirmation which hath now very little appearance of truth in it and if it had would be little for the Presbyterian interest to insist on it when after all that time of the supposed government of that Church by Presbyters it was found directly barbarous and to be planted with Christianity anew at Palladius'â— coming Some uncertainty we see there is of the time and meanes of planting Christianity in Scotland but as to this matter of the 230. yeares under Presbytery there can be no ground to affirme it For if the conversion of it be dated from Victor's time as that opinion would have it yet even by that account 't was after the space wherein the Presbyterians themselves acknowledge Episcopacy to have prevailed over all the World and then upon that account it must be granted that whensoever their first conversion was 't was certainly derived to them by those who had Episcopall Government among them and then they having sent them Presbyters to instruct and officiate as Presbyters not as Bishops among them those Presbyters must be supposed to have continued under those Bishops by whom they were sent whether from Rome or neerer home from the British so farre at least as that when they failed their number was supplied from the same Fountaine from which they first sprang in the same manner as our own experience tells us of Virginia which since the first Plantation continued to receive Presbyters from hence and so continued to be untill they had Bishops ordained and planted among them And so much for that second supposed inconvenience also Sect. IV. Of Salmasius's conceit that these Epistles were written at the time of Episcopacy first entring the Church THat which followes of the Justice of the Reverend Presbyterian Divines censure of these Epistles of Salmasius's his beliefe that they were written by a Pseudo-Ignatius will not require any answer from me who cannot be moved by the conclusion made by those Divines any farther than the Premisses here produced and answered have appeared to have force in them and who have more largely examined Salmasius his exceptions heretofore and was even now by them acknowledged so to have done
notion And yet even by him these of this uppermost degree are called Seniores and Majores natu Elders Praesident probati quique Seniores the Elders praeside Apol. c. 39. and of the Bishops of Rome the series of whom he had brought downe to Anicetus lib. 3. contr Marcion cap. 9. he expresses them by Majores natu successors of the Apostles in his Book written in verse against Marcion And there will be lesse wonder in this when it is remembred that after this in Saint Cyprian's times who hath been sufficiently evidenced to speake of Bishops in our moderne notion of them Firmilian Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia in vulgar style calls them Seniores and Praepositi Elders and Provosts in his Epistle to Cyprian and againe Praesident Majores natu c. the Elders praeside evidently meaning the Bishops by those titles And so much be spoken in returne to what they have objected from these two Antients Irenaeus and Tertullian supposing that I have competently performed the taske by them imposed on the Praelatists shewed that the Bishops spoken of by them were Bishops over Presbyters and by them understood to be so Sect. VI. Saint Jerom's Testimony of Bishops c. by Apostolicall Tradition Consuetudo opposed to Dominica dispositio Saint Jerom's meaning evidenced by many other Testimonies to be that Bishops were instituted by the Apostles So by Panormitan also The Testimonies of Isidore c. the Councel of Aquen and of Leo vindicated Of Ischyras's Ordination The testimony of the Synod ad Zurrium and of the 4th Councel of Carthage IN the next place I am to proceed to that of Saint Hierome in his 85. Epistle ad Euagrium the unanswerablenesse of which I am affirmed to make matter of Triumph over D. Blondel and Walo Massalinus seeming to say that it never can be answered whereas say they if I had been pleased to cast an eye upon the vindication written by Smectymnuus I should have found this answer What this answer is we shall see anon In the meane it will be necessary to give a briefe account what it was which is called a triumphing over these two learned men And first it is sufficiently knowne what advantages the defenders of Presbyter◠conceive themselves to have from that one Antient writer the Presbyter Saint Hierome From him they have the interpretation of those Scriptures which they thinke to be for their use as that the word Bishop and Presbyter are all one in several texts of Scripture and both signifie Presbyters and that the Apostles at first designed ut communi Presbyterorū concilio Ecclesiae gubernarentur that the Churches should be governed by the common Councel of Presbyters and that it so continued till upon the dissentions which by this meanes arose in the Church it was judged more prudent and usefull to the preserving of unity ut unus superponeretur reliquis that one should be set over the rest and all the care of the Church belong to him And this saith Hierome in toto Orbe decretum decreed and executed over the whole world By whom this was conceived by him to be thus decreed he gives us not to understand in that place nor in what point of time he thought it was done but leaves us to collect both from some few circumstances as 1. that it was after Schismes entred into the Church and one said I am Paul I of Apollos c. And if it were immediately after that then the Presbyterians will gaine but little by this Patron For his whole meaning will be that the Apostles first put the Government of each Church into the hands of many but soon saw the inconvenience of doing so and the Schisme and ruptures consequent to it and changed it themselves and setled one singular Bishop in the whole power of Government in every Church to which very fitly coheres what Clement had said that lest new contentions should arise about this singular dignity and authority who should succeed to it they made a roll or Catalogue of those which in vacancies should succeed in each Church That this was not in Hierome's opinion done thus early in the Apostles time the Presbyterians think they may conclude from what he saith on Tit. 1. Episcopi noverint se magis consuetudine quam dispositionis Dominicae veritate Presbyteris esse Majores Let Bishops know that their greatnesse and superiority over Presbyters is held rather by custome than by Christs having disposed it so But it is very possible that this may not prove the conclusion which is thought to be inferred by it For here Consuetudo Custome as opposed to Christs disposition may well signifie the Practice of the Church in the later part of the Apostles times and ever since to S. Hierome's days and that may well be severed from all command or institution of Christs so Jerom's opinion may well be this that Christ did not ordain this superiority of one above another but left all in common in the Apostles hands who within awhile to avoid Schism put the power in each Church in the hands of some one singular person And that this was Hierome's meaning I thought my selfe in charity to him obliged to thinke both because in this sense his words would better agree with the universal affirmation of all Orthodoxe Christians that before him and after him too unlesse those few that took it on his credit speake of this matter and also because if this be not his sense he must needs be found to contradict himselfe having elsewhere affirmed that the three degrees of Bishops Presbyters and Deacons in the Church were of Apostolicall tradition i. e. by the Apostles themselves delivered to the Church And now before I proceed I desire the ingenuous Reader who is contrary minded to consider what he can object to this conclusion of mine thus inferr'd concerning S. Hierome's opinion and consequently what probability there is that the Presbyterians cause should be superstructed on any Testimony of S. Hierome supposing what I am next to demonstrate that the three orders are by him acknowledged to be delivered from the Apostles And this is evident in his Epistle to Euagrius where having againe delivered the substance of what hath been now cited from his notes on Tit. 1. he yet concludes Et ut sciamus-traditiones Apostolicas sumptas de veteritestamento Quod Aaron filii ejus atque Levitae in templ◠fuerunt hoc sibi Episcopi Presbyteri Diaconi in Ecclesiâ vendicent That we may know that the Apostles traditions are taken out of the Old Testament we have this instance that what Aaron and his Sonnes and the Levites were in the Temple the same the Bishops and Presbyters and Deacons challenge to themselves in the Church Where these three degrees and so the superiority of Bishops over Presbyters are by him affirmed to be traditions of the Apostles On occasion therefore of inquiring into Hierome's meaning and because this place so readily offered it selfe to
expedite it it was sure very reasonable to examine and observe what they which made most advantage of Hierome's authority should be found to say to this testimony of his for the Apostolical tradition of three orders And among these three principall persons offered themselves to our consideration D. Blondell Walo Messalinus or Salmasius and Lud. Capellus every of them having newly written on this subject and collected especially what Jerome had said of it Of these three the last was soone discerned to have dealt most prudently setting downe the other testimonies out of him but wholly omitting this The other two having not been so wary made use of another dexterity set downe the words but deferr'd their observations on them till some fitter season D. Blondell put it off to his sixt Section whereas upon examination he hath but three in his whole booke and so is certainly never likely to speake of it nor can be justly believed to have in earnest designed any such thing The other saith he expects more and better notes on it from Salmasius i.e. from himselfe in another booke viz. De Ecclesiastico Ordine and after a great volume come out of that subject 8. or 9. yeares after he yet never takes this place or his own promise into consideration This was all that my search produced and the taking notice of these plaine matters of fact the behaviours of these men in that which so much concern'd the whole cause to be taken notice of and laid to heart is all that was done by me and which is styled by these a triumphing over those learned Men. And I hope there was little of hard measure and as little of insolence in this Now because what these learned Men thus averted the doing is yet here said to be done by Smectymnuus and that if I had cast an eye on the vindication I should there have found that place of Hierome's answered I am now in the last place to obey their directions and consider the answer which from Smectymnuus they have set down for me And it is twofold the first is a civill denyall that there is any truth in the words For say they It is hard to conceive how this imparity can be properly called an Apostolicall Tradition when Jerome having mentioned John the last of the Apostles saith it was postea that one was set over the rest But is this the way of answering the place or salving the difficulty Hierome saith Bishops Presbyters and Deacons in the Church that sure is this imparity are an Apostolicall Tradition and they answer It is hard to conceive how it can be properly so called What is this but to make Hierom's words as soone as ever he saith any thing which accords not with their interest as unreconcileable with truth as with his own former words which they had cited from him And then how much kinder to Hierome was I than they who thought it necessary to affix a commodious meaning to his former words and interpret confuetudo the custome of the Church begun in the Apostles dayes that so in thus saying he might be reconcileable with himself when he called Episcopacy a tradition Apostolicall As for the reason which makes this so hard for them to conceive from Hierome's words I believe it hath no force in it For though after the mention of S. John's words in his second and third Epistle he saith that postea afterwards this imparity was introduced yet this proves not his opnion to be that it was not Apostolicall tradition It might be done after the writing of those Epistles and yet in St. John's time i. e. before his death And though I believe St. Hierome was mistaken in thinking there were no Bishops till then it would have had more truth in it if he had said there were no Presbyters till then yet for all that I cannot doubt but this was his opnion because as he no where saith any thing which is contrary to this so here be saith expresly that it was Apostolicall tradition which in his opinion it could not be if it were not in the Church in his opinion before St. John's death And so there is but little appearance of validity in their first Answer And for their second that is somewhat like the former viz. that with Hierome Apostolicall tradition and Ecclesiasticall custome are the same If this be true then certainly I did not amisse in thinking that when Hierome used consuetudo custome in opposition to Dominica dispositio Christ's appointment or institution I ought to interpret custome in that place by Apostolicall Tradition in the other For how Ecclesiasticall custome with him and Apostolicall Tradition should be the same and yet Ecclesiasticall custome may not be interpreted by Apostolicall tradition especially when the same man affirmes them both of the same thing I confesse I cannot apprehend But then secondly because I must suppose that by making them the same they must meane to bring downe Apostolicall tradition to signifie Ecclesiasticall custome not to advance custome to signify Apostolicall tradition in the same manner as when they make Bishop and Elder the â—ame they bring down Bishop to signifie Presbyter but will not allow Elder to signifie Bishop that also will be worth examining a while And 1. Can there be any reason to imagine that Hierome or any man should set down that for an instance of Apostolicall tradition which the same person doth not believe to be delivered by the Apostles but to be of a latter date That which is delivered by the Apostles and received and practiced by the Church may fitly be called a custome of the Church without adding or specifying that we meane the Apostolicall Church because the Apostles while they lived were a part of the Church and the following age was a part of the Church also But can it be truly said that that was delivered by the Apostles which was onely accustomed in the subsequent Church and not so much as introduced under the Apostles This certainly is another strange way of interpreting words or phrases quite contrary to all Lexicons or to the use of such words or phrases which unlesse they be changed it is as much as to say he that said Tradition Apostolicall did not meane Tradition Apostolicall And this sure will bring little credit to St. Hierome on whose authority they so much depend in this matter As for their proofe of what they say viz. because the observation of Lent which he saith ad Marcellum is Apostolica traditio is contra Luciferianos said by him to be Ecclesiae consuetudo that sure is not of force to conclude what they would have it for it may be or by him be deemed to be both an Apostolicall tradition and a custome of the hurch too it being very ordinary and reasonable that what the Apostles delivered the Church should also accustome and practice But could both these be said by him of that which he thought were but one of these That is
the same as hath beene cited from Ignatius that all the world over the Bishops were ordained by the Apostles according to the minde of Christ In his Dial. adv Luciferian Ecclesiae salus in summi sacerdotis dignitate pendit cui si non exors quaedam ab omnibus eminens detur potestas tot in Ecclesiis efficientur Schismata quot sacerdotes and Si quaeris quare in Ecclesiâ baptizatus nisi per manus Episcopi non accipiat spiritum sanctum disce hanc observationem ex â—a authoritate descendere quod spiritus sanctus ad Apostolos descendit The safety of the Church depends on the dignity of the chiefe Priest or Bishop to whom if a peculiar power be not given above all that others have there will be as many Schisms as Priests in the Churches If you demand why he that hath been baptized in the Church may not receive the Holy Ghost but by the hands of the Bishop learne that this observance dâ—scends from that Authority in that the holy spâ—it descended on thâ— Apostles 〈◊〉 Testimoâ—y as it shewes the necessity of a singular Bishop to avoid Schisms in the Church and so must affixe the institution of them on the Apostles who made provision against that danger and that I suppose is his meaning in that place which the Presbyterians make most use of so it directly derives the authority by which Bishops stand in the Church distinct from Presbyters and above them from the descent of the Holy Ghost on the Apostles Lastly adv Jovinian 〈◊〉 Episcopâ— Presbyter Diaconus non sunt meritorum nomina sed offiâ—iorâ—m Nec dicitur si quis Episcopatum desilerat The Bishop and Presbytâ—r and Deacon are names of offices neither is it said If any man dâ—siâ—e a Bishoprick applying those Texts of Saint Paul concerning the qualifications of Bishops to the Bishop as in his time he stood distinct from Presbyters All this I supose may suffice to give authority to my collection and conclusion from plaine words of Saint Hierome that his meaning was as plaine and undubitable that Episcopacy was delivered downe and instituted in the Church by the Apostles themselves And I cannot conceive what can be invented to avoid the evidence of these testimonies yet because I promised it I shall now adde that one argument ex abundanti and much more than is necessary to the same purpose viz. to prove that this was Hierome's meaning which I pretend it to be And that such as by these objectors cannot with justice be denyed to have a full irrefragable force in it having themselves made use of it against us which they ought not to have done if by themselves it shall now be denyed when it is produced by us In the close of their Appendix they have set downe several propositions declaring the judgement and practice of the Antient Church about ordination of Ministers and their first proposition being this that in the first and purest times there was ordination of Presbyters without Bishops over Presbyters their proofe is this For these Bishops came in postea and pâ—ulâ—tim afterward and by little and little as Jerome saith And Panormitan lib. 1. Decretal de Consuetud cap. 4. saith Olim Presbyteri in communi regebant Ecclesian◠〈◊〉 sacerdotes pariter conferebant omnia sacramenta Of old the Elders ruled the Church in common and ordained Priests and joyntly conferred all the Sacraments These two testimonies of Hierome and Panormitan being brought to prove the same proposition concerning ordination by Presbyters and the time of Bishops coming in to the Church It must sure be reasonable to resolve that what Panormitan hath defined in this matter that was Saint Hieromes sense also Now what that is will be discerned by setting downe Panormitane's words at large as they lye in the place cited by them The businesse he hath there in hand is to prove that custome is not of force so farre as to prescribe that an Ordinary Clerk as Presbyter shâ—uld performe an Episcopal act Ea quae sum ordinis Episcopalis non possunt acquiri per ordinem inferiorem ex consuitudine quantamcunque veâ—ustissimâ Those things that are of Episcopal order cannot be any custome how antient soever be acquired by any Inferiour order The reason is quia consuetudo non facit quem capacem because custome doth make no man capable Then he makes this observation that Ritus Apostol orum circa sacramenta habent impedire characterus impressionem The rites or practice or Institutions of the Apostles about the Sacraments have power to hâ—nd â—the impression of the Character nam immediate post mortem Christiâ—omâ—es Presbyteri in communi regebant ecclesiam non fuerant inter ipsos Epiâ—scopi sed idem Presbyter quod Epiâ—copus pariter conferebant omnia sacramenta sed postinodum ad Schismata sedâ—nda fecerunt seu ordinaverunt Apostoli ut crearentur Episcopâ— certa sacramenta iis reservarunt illa interdicendo simplicibus Presbyteris For immediately after the death of Christ all thâ— Elders in common ruled the Church and so there were no Bishops among them but a Presbyter was the same that a Bishop and they joyntly conferred all the Sacraments But after a while for the appeasing of Schismes the Apostles caused or ordained that Bishops should be created and reserved to them some Sacraments or holy Rites forbidding single Presbyters to meddle with them and he concludes Et vides hic quod talis ordinatio habet impedire etiam impressionem Characteris quia si Presbyteri illa de facto conferunt nihil conferunt and here you see that such an Ordination is able to hinder the impression of the Character because if Presbyters doe de facto confer them they confer nothing Where as Panormitan cited by them to prove Ordination without Bishops and specious words pickt out of him to that purpose doth yet distinctly affirme that Presbyters which confer Orders without a Bishop conferre nothing all their Ordinations are meere nullities and what could have been said more severely against their practice and their designe in citing him than this so he plainly interprets St. Jeromes assertion of the occasion and time of Bishops being set over the Presbyters that it was done by the appointment of the Apostles themselves and so that consuetudo custome in Jerome opposed to Christ's disposall is no more than postmodum ordinaverunt Apostoli after a while the Apostles ordeined opposed to immediatè post mortem Christi immediately after the death of Christ And then by the way as the Reader may hence discerne what force there is in this Testimony of Panormitan to support their first proposition concerning the Ordination of Presbyters without Bishops over Presbyters for which besides St. Jeromes postea and paulatim and part of this testimony of Panormitan they produce no other and as by what was formerly said of the Testimonies of Cyprian and Firmilian their chiefe supports for their second proposition