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
is onely to state the Question betwixt us which is all the while no more but this whether Tertullian and Irenaeus that call Polycarpe and Onesymus Bishop of Smyrna and Ephesus meane Bishops 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in a peculiar sense or in a generall phrase as all Presbyters are called Bishops And this I acknowledge to be the onely question between us and if Bishops doe signifie Bishops I cannot doubt but the cause is by them adjudged on our side And why it should not they have to conclude onely this offer of argument that Bishops and Presbyters had all one name in the Apostles dayes and long after in Irenaeus's time 55. I am truly weary of the length of this Chapter and cannot but by consent have some compassion on the Reader and therefore I shall bring the matter to this short issue This reason of theirs is no reason unlesse the word Bishop both in the Apostles dayes and long after Irenaeus's time signified a Presbyter in our moderne notion For if both 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bishop and Elder signified Bishop in our notion this againe gives the cause to us from them And upon these termes I am content to leave it if ever they finde in Irenaeus that Episcopus signifies a Presbyter in our moderne notion I will confesse them Conquerours but this they have not offered here to doe and I have some moderate assurance they never will And so much for that Chapter CHAP. II. Of the equivalence of the words Bishop and Elder in the New Testament Section I. Foure sorts of equivalence of these words proposed THe next place where I find my selfe call'd forth is about the midst of their seventh Chapter toward the bottom of pag. 92. Onely for the conclusion of this Discourse c. For although in the former part of that Chapter they undertake to vindicate their chiefe proofes of Scripture Act. 20. 17 28. Phil. 1. 1. 1 Tim. 3. 1 Pet. 5. and to make replies to the Answers given to them and although it is most certaine that in the Dissertations every of those places are answered and shew'd to be fully reconcileable with our praetensions for Praelacy yet they have not pleased to take any notice of what is there said which if they had done I might without insolence undertake to shew that it had prevented all appearance of force in any of their Replies And therefore being by this meanes perfectly freed from all obligation to view any Paragraph of that former part of the Chapter and having already said somewhat to the chiefe of their places Act. 20. and fore-seeing a fit opportunity for the rest I shall for mine own and the Readers ease punctually expect and obey the summons appeare when I am call'd before them but no sooner avert their charge and not multiply debates above what is necessary Thus then they begin that there is a Doctor a high Praelatist c. That in a late Booke of his hath undertaken to make out these two great Paradoxes 1. That wheresoever the word Bishop is used in the New Testament it is to be taken in a praelaticall sense 2. That wheresoever the word Presbyter is used in the New Testament it is to be understood not of a mere Presbyter but of a Bishop properly so called And whereas we say that the Scripture-Bishop is nothing else but a Presbyter and that there was no Bishops distinct from Presbyters in the Apostles dayes this Author on the contrary saith that the Scripture-Presbyter is a true Bishop and that there were no single and meere Presbyters in the Apostles dayes For our parts we do not thinke it necessary to take a particular survey of all that is said in justification of these Paradoxes onely we desire it may be considered There is so much of the sense of some passages in the Dissertations set downe in these words that I am forced to believe that I am the Author here charged for these two Paradoxes That they are so styled by those who are contrary minded and who have assumed a power which if either of these propositions be true they must be obliged to part with I cannot thinke strange And if I should style their assertions as perfectly Paradox i.e. as contrary to all the antients sense or Doctrine in this matter when they say that the Scripture-Bishop is nothing else but a Presbyter c. this were certainly an introduction fit to be confronted to theirs as being equally argumentative But because this verball eloquence hath little of efficacy in it and will never be a meanes of evincing the truth of our pretensions by affirming the contrary to be errours or Paradoxes and because what is affixt to me is not intirely my sense though it recite it in some part and approach neere to it I shall here begin with a briefe relation of what is affirmed by the Dissertations in this matter and then inquire what is here produced to invalidate it Dissert 4. c. 6. the method leading to the consideration of the word Bishop and Elder in the Scripture the first thing taken notice of was the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or equivalence of these words in the opinion of many To which purpose Theodoret Chrysostome Oecumenius and St Hierome are cited as favourers of this opinion but this with some difference of the one from the other And for the distinct stating of the Question foure senses were set downe wherein it was possible that this equivalence of the words might be understood 1. That both Bishop and Elder should signifie one and the same viz. a Bishop in our moderne notion 2. That both should signifie the same thing viz. a Presbyter 3. That both of them should signifie promiscuously sometimes a Bishop sometimes a Presbyter i. e. that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should sometime signifie a Bishop sometime a Presbyter and in like manner 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifie sometime a Bishop sometime a Presbyter 4. That the word Bishop should alwayes signifie a singular Bishop and the word Elder sometimes a Bishop and sometimes a Presbyter Of these foure senses of the equivalence of these words it was sure no error to conclude that they were not all of them true each being exclusive of the other three and although some of the antients might be brought in favour to one more than to the other yet this was eminently observable that those that favoured that species which is most for the Presbyterians interest to be accepted doe yet assert the cause of the Prelatists as confidently as any So Theodoret who seemes most to assert the second species doth yet propugne the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the superiour dignity of Bishops above Presbyters and affirmes Those who were in his time called Bishops the Singular praefects of Cities to have been styled Apostles in the Scripture-times and that Epaphroditus was called so by St. Paul as being Bishop of the Philippians and so saith he
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
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.