Scripture except Saint Iohn's But then 2. that doth not infer them to be new expressions in Saint Iohn's dayes as these dayes are distinguisht from the dayes of the other Apostles whom Iohn survived but only that they were idiomes or characters of speech that Saint Iohn delighted to make use of 13. Thus indeed 't is ordinarily observed of his expressing of Christ by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the word which yet is taken from the Ancients of the Jewish Church the Chaldes paraphrase being knowne frequently to use 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the word of the Lord and Plato seems to have been acquainted with the expression which caused Amelius to sweare at the reading the beginning of S. John's Gospell that that Barbarian was of their Plato's mind that the word of God was in order of a Principle and perhaps not peculiarly to him appropriate for Budaeus a very learned Critick in Greek affirmes Saint Luke to have used it in this notion cap. 1. 2. and if he doth not yet still 't will be but a peculiar part of John's style which if he had written his Gospell in the same yeare that Saint Matthew did his he would doubtlesse have made use of the phrase being certainly in the world before that time and so not new as they would have it and the usage of it in the Church being in all reason to be derived from John's use of it who was from thence called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Divine not John's use of it from the new admission of it into the Christian Church 14. And for the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lord's day as it is not certaine that it is the Christian Sabbath I meane the weekly Lord's day which is meant by that title once used in the Revelation but as probably the feast of Easter the annual commemoration of Christ's rising from the dead and accordingly Andreas Caesariensis sets it indifferently yet so as it seems rather to incline to the later 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Lord's day bearing the memorial of the resurrection of Christ so in what notion soever it be taken it was against Saint Iohn's use of the word that gave it authority in the following dialect of the Church not the Churches usage that we any where can discerne from whence Saint Iohn derived it And so this will be an instance as ineffectual as the former to inferre the conclusion to which it is designed For indeed bating the unskilfulnesse of the argument ab authoritate negative already mentioned what a strange way of concluding would this be S. Iohn useth the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the word and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lord's day supposing also that 't is true which is added and no other writer of the Scripture useth them but in stead of them the Sonne of God Messias Christ and the first day of the week therefore if there had been any office of Bishops erected in the Church in Saint Iohn's time it is strange that Saint Iohn should not mention the name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bishop 'T is at the first hearing cleare enough that there is no strangenesse in this both because Saint Iohn undertooke not to set downe a Dictionary of all words or customes which were in his time in the Church and because there is no proportion held betwixt the members of the comparison as hath been shewed And it will yet be lesse strange because 1. it is easily supposeable and not strange that he should have no occasion at all to mention that office or that mentioning it he should doe it in his owne chosen expression 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Angel or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elder as in other greater matters he is acknowledged and allowed to doe by either of those signifying the same thing as expressely as the using of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bishop would have done And 2. it is otherwise as manifest by Saint Paul and Saint Luke that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bishop and the office belonging to it were before the time of Saint John's writings used in the Church as it could be if Saint Iohn had made expresse mention of it 15. And lastly for the highest round in the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the special part of the consideration our affirmation that Polycarp was made Bishop by Saint Iohn that doth not any more than all the rest inferre it necessary that Saint Iohn should mention the name Bishop Saint Iude I hope is supposed by the Assemblers to have constituted some Presbyters in the Church and yet he in his Epistle hath made no mention of any such name or office And so much for that first consideration Section IV. Of Saint John's writings Againe of Diotrephes A Second consideration now followes to be added to this That there is not any the least intimation in all S. John's writings of the superiority of one Presbyter over another save onely where he names and chides Diotrephes as one ambitiously affecting such a Primacy 2. A consideration of the same unhappy constitution with the former 1. a testimonio negativè againe Saint Iohn had no occasion to mention it therefore there was in his time no such thing and 2. in respect of the matter just the same againe put only in other words there 't was No mention of Bishop in all Saint John's writings here No superiority of one Presbyter over another in all Saint John's writings And so it can adde no accumulation of weight to the former 3. But then 2. bating againe those two infirmities in discourse what if it were granted that at the time of Saint John's writing there were not in the whole Church of Christ any one Presbyter superior to another Presbyter what hath the Author of the Dissert lost or they gained by this He makes no doubt willingly to yeild to any inforcing reason that is or shall be produced to conclude that at that time there was above Deâ—cons but one degree in the Church and yet to be never the lesse qualified to maintaine his praetensions Nay he is knowne to have expressed it as his opinion probably inferred and not easily confuted and that by which if it be true or because there is no evidence to the contrary all the Presbyterian praetensions founded in the doubtfulnesse of words in Scripture are utterly excluded that there were not in the space within compasse of which all the Bookes of the New Testament were written any Presbyters in our Moderne notion of them created in the Church though soon after certainely in Ignatius's time there were and then if the consideration now before us were of any force at all this would be the one direct and proper use of it to adde more confidence to this opinion and so to confirme not to invalidate our praetensions 4. Thirdly for Diotrephes and Saint Iohn's chiding of him for ambitiously affecting a Primacy over other Presbyters there will appeare to be more than one misadventure in it For
a temporary President or Prolecutor and brought no manner of reason to confirme it will have very little validity in it 5. What is proved by the bare testimony of Beza is farther confirmed by a like citation out of the Reverend Divines at the Isle of Wight who by the example of the King sending a message to both Houses and directing it To the Speaker of the House of Peeres which inferres not that 〈◊〉 the Speaker is alwayes the same person or the Governour or Ruler of the two Houses in the least conclude that notwithstanding this direction of Christ's Epistle to the Angels yet they might be neither Bishops nor yet perpetuall Moderators 6. But the authority of those Divines which had this answer from Beza addes nothing of weight because nothing of proofe to it As for their similitude it concludes nothing but this that these Divines thought fit to make use of this instance of a Speaker in Parliament to shew the thing possible to have been not to prove that so it was And the matter of our present inquiry is not what a kinde of president Christ and his Apostles might if they would have left in each Church but what really they did And that must be contested by the best Records of those times not by a similitude of a Speaker in our Parliaments And that is all I neede to say to that Section Section XV. Of Dr. Reynolds interpretation of the Bishop in Cyprian Of Ordination by Bishops not without Presbyters from the Testimonies of Cyprian and Fermilian AFter the authority of Mr. Beza backt with that of the Divines at the Isle of Wight is added in the second place the authority of Dr. Reynolds who as he hath a Letter in print against the Divine Right of Episcopacy so he acknowledgeth also in his conference with Hart Dial. 3. That this Angel was persona singularis For he saith 2. The whole place of Dr. Reynolds is set down at large by the Archbishop of Armagh in the front of his learned Dissertation of the Originall of Bishops and Metropolitanes and I shall not neede here to recite it being of some length and indeed nothing in it defined or exprest of his opinion that the President when he was made such either continued to be equall with the rest of the Presbyters or lasted but for a time so as the Prolocutor of an Assembly doth I am sure he affirms him to have had the Presidentship not among but over Elders which I suppose must imply some power and that this was he that in the Primitive Church the Fathers called Bishop and applies to him the mentions of Bishops made by St. Cyprian and Cornelius of whose notion of Bishops that it 〈◊〉 not to a bare Prolocutor of an Assembly nay that in nothing it differeth from ours I am sufficiently assured and so will the Reader by what is cited from him Dissert 3. c. 3. § 13. And because from some other intimations in this Book I see there is neede of it I shall here 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 out of many mention this one evidence more 3. In the 60 Epistle to Rogation a Bishop who had beene wronged and contumeliously used by a Deacon of his Church and had written an account of it to Cyprian and the annuall Councell of Bishops with him Cyprian returnes this Answer that it was his humility to make this complaint to the councell Cum pro Episcopatus vigore Cathedrae authoritate haberes potestatem quâ possis de illo statim vindicari when by force of his Episcopall power and by authority of his chaire hee had power himselfe to inflict punishment on him immediatly and that punishment afterward specified ut eum deponas vel abstineas either to depose him or suspend him 4. Here it was a part of Rogatian's Episcopall power without any joyning with him to judge and censure the inferiour Officers of the Church and they were bound honorem sacerdotis agnoscere Episcopo praeposito suo as it followes in that Epistle to acknowledge the honour of their Priest and with full humility make satisfaction to the Bishop which is set over them All power in the hands of one set over all call'd promiscuousâ—ly Priest and Bishop in Cyprian's style 5. And therefore when in the Appendix to this Book these men to prove that Ordination by Bishops without the assistance of Presbyters was alwayes forbidden and opposed tell us of Aureliu's being ordained by Cyprian and his Collegues Ep. 33. and then assure us from 8p 58. that by his collegues he meanes his Presbyters where yet there is no other proofe of it but the using of these words in the Inscription of the Epistle Cyprianus cum Collegis and Ego collegae Cyprian with his collegues and I and my collegues This is a great but discernible fallacy put upon the Reader as will soone appeare 1. If we but observe that the 33 Epistle where he tells of Aurelius was written by Cyprian to his Presbyters and so they are the persons whom he advertiseth what he and his Collegues had done and so sure were not those Collegues that did it with him Or secondly if for the understanding Cyprian's notion of Collegues Ep. 58. we shall but looke forward to the next Epistle 59. for that will fully discover it being this Cyprianus caeteri Collegae qui in Concilio affuerunt numero LXVI where Cyprians Collegues are evidently the 66. Bishops that were in Councel with him 6. The like might be also observed of the Testimony out of Firmilian which they there subjoyne of the Seniores and Praepositi that have power of ordeining by whom say they the Presbyters as well as the Bishops are understood But againe 't is cleare by the expresse words of the Epistle that by them are meant the Bishops in their annual Councel Necessariâ— apud nos fit ut per singulos annos Seniores Praepositi in unuâ— conveniamus 'T is necessary that every yeare we the Elders and Governors should meet together to dispose and order those things which are committed to our care adding concerning the Church in opposition to Hereticks that all power and grace is placed in it ubi praesident majores natu qui Baptizandi manum imponendi ordinandi possident potestatem wherein the Elders praeside and have power of Baptizing absolving and ordeining an evident description of the Bishops But this by the way as an essay what their testimonies out of the Fathers scattered sometimes in this Book would be found to be if this were a place to examine them 7. Lastly Dr. Reinolds acknowledges another Praesident even among Bishops the Bishop of the chiefest City in the Province and so a Metropolitan All which are contrary enough to the praetensions of the Presbyterians what amends he hath made them in his Printed letter I know not 8. Yet after all this there lyes no obligation upon us to regulate our Doctrine by Doctor
that the seven Stars are found fixed in seven not one over divers Churches this I conceive not to be of any force For it being by us granted and presumed that each of the seven Asian Angels was Bishop of his particular Church one of Ephesus another of Smyrna c. It is perfectly reconcileable herewith that in case these seven were not the onely Cities and Churches in Asia as it is certaine they were not all Asia consisting of many more Cities being before this converted to the Faith all the other might have dependance on these seven 4. For this we know that two Bishops in England that were each of them first in one City for example in Canterbury or Yorke had yet each of them a superiority or Metropoliticall power over divers other Cities and when any Record styles one of them Bishop of Canterbury as the Scripture doth Angel of Ephesus we should sure acknowledge it a very infirme inference from the words of that Record to conclude that being Bishop of Canterbury he could not be Metropolitan of London Rochester c. 5. And this is the very parallel to the present instance and if it were not invalid enough by being a bare negative argument they are not said in Scripture to be one Starre over divers Churches all things that are are not said in Scripture those Angels have not therefore no names because they are not there recorded this parallel instance which supposes the contrary to their pretensions would be sufficient to invalidate it Section XVIII Of the use of the word Bishop for Archbishop in Tertullian Of Angel in Christs Epistle A Fourth answer or rather confutation is added That if this opinion were true then Tertullian did not doe well in saying that St. John made Polycarpe Bishop of Smyrna but he should rather have said that he made him Archbishop And our Saviour Christ had not given to these seven Angels their due Titles for he must have written to the Angel of the Church of Ephesus together with all those Churches in the Cities subordinate to Ephesus And so likewise of the other six 2. To this I reply that the affirming the seven Angels to have been Metropolitanes no way obligeth us to find fault either with Tertullians or our Saviour's style Not with Tertullian's for 1. an Arch-Bishop is a Bishop though dignified above some others of that order Secondly supposing Smyrna to be a Metropolis as no doubt if it were Tertullian knew and supposed it to be then his styling Polycarp Bishop of Smyrna is aequivalent to his calling him a Metropolitaâ— or Archbishop As acknowledging Canterbury to be a Metropolitical See in England the affirming William Laud to be constituted Bishop of Canterbury is all one as to affirme him Archbishop 3. Thus when Chrysostome saith of Titus that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an intire Island and the judgement of so many Bishops was committed to him what is this but to affirme Titus Arch-bishop of Crete And yet Eusebius who believed this and adverted to it as much as Chrysostome uses this phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that he was Bishop of the Churches of Creet calling him Bishop distinctly though by the mention of the Churches in the plural 't is evident he meant the same that we doe by Arch-Bishop 4. So againe Eusebius of Irenaeus that he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was Bishop of the Provinces of France which must needs signifie Archbishop of Lyons for so he was And 't is certaine that other of the Antients use the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Arch-Bishop of those which were no otherwise qualified for that title as when Saint Cyprian the Bishop of Carthage under which the whole Province of Africk is comprehended is by the Councel of Constantinople called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Arch-Bishop of the region of Africk 5. The same answer will competently suffice for the reconciling Christ's style and ours for supposing Ephesus to have been a Metropolis the writing to the Angel of that Church implyes writing to those other Churches in the Cities subordinate to Ephesus and need not be more fully exprest as when the Apostle wrote to the Church of Corinth and not onely so but to all the Saints and so all the Churches in all Achaia 2 Cor. 1. 1. 't is certaine that the former Epistle was written to those very same Churches viz. all under the Metropolis of Corinth and yet it is inscribed to the Church of God which is at Corinth 1 Cor. 1. 1. without mentioning of Achaia save onely in a general indefinite phrase with all that in every place call on the name of Jesus 6. Secondly the word in Christ's Epistle being not Bishop but Angel is not at all lyable to this exception For why may not an Arch-Bishop be as fitly called an Angel as a Bishop would be nay if it be remembred what was formerly cited out of Clemens Alexandrinus Strom. 6. that there are seven Angels which have the greatest power by him styled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the first-borne rulers of the Angels parallel to the phrase in Dan. 7. 10. 13. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the head Lords or chiefe Princes or as we ordinarily stile them the Archangels of which number Michael is there named to be one There will then be more than a tolerable propriety of speech in Christ's style a most exact critical notation of their being Arch-Bishops and withall a farther account of Tertullian's calling Polycarp a Bishop of Smyrna though he were Arch-Bishop just as the Archangels in Daniel are more than once called Angels in the Revelation 7. For a close of this mater they are pleased to adde their Character not over-benigne of those by whom this device as they style it was found out for the honour of Archpiscopacy that they did aspire unto that dignity 8. If hereby be meant the Lord Primate of Ireland in his discourse of the Original of Bishops this character can have no propriety in it he having quietly enjoyed that dignity many yeares before the writing hereof If it be designed for a reproach to me I shall elude the blow by not thinking it such For as at a time when Episcopacy it selfe was by the Parliament abolisht and that Act of severity actually put in execution it had been a great folly in any to hope that he should ever attaine to that Office of Dignity in the Church and what ever other follies I have been guilty of truly that was none of them so I thinke there could not a point of time more commodiously have been chosen in the space of above 1600 yearâ—s wherein a man might have better secured a Discourse for Bishops and Metropolitanes from the Censure of aspiring to either of those Dignities that was that wherein that Book was published 9. To this if I adde by way of retortion that it is evident that they which write this Jus Divinum Ministerii Evangeliei doe aspire every one of them to their
the gainsayers No obligation lying upon him by the Lawes of these agones to use those arguments and no other nor otherwise improved which all other writers of that side have done before him For if this were the manner of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the legail combate to what end should any second writing on the same subject ever appeare to the World That which had been formerly said needed not to be transcribed and said againe but either the booke might be Re-printed or translated into a language more intelligible as I have here been fame oft to doe And though I might truly say that for those more minute considerations or conjectures wherein this Doctor differs from some others who have written before him as to the manner of interpreting some few Texts he hath the suffrages of many the learnedst men of this Church at this day and as farre as he knowes of all that imbrace the same cause with him yet I doe not thinke it necessary to prove my agreement with others of my brethren by this onely medium It being certaine that they who believe the same conclusion upon severall mediums or wayes of inferring it are in that and may be in all other conclusions at perfect accord and unity among themselves All that I can conclude from this and the former consideration the double charge laid on me of contrariety to antiquity and other asserters of Episcopacy is onely this that the authors of them are ill pleased that I use any other arguments or answers but what they were willing to assigne me otherwise if there had been lesse not more truth or evidence in my way of defending the cause they would have had the greater advantage against me and I doubt not have been in the space of three yeares at leisure to have observed it Section V. Inconveniencies objected and answer'd Of more Bishops in one City No Presbyters in the Apostles dayes The no Divine right of the Order of Presbyters BUt they are in the third place pleased to object some inconveniences which the defending of these paradoxes must necessarily bring upon me And to these I shall more diligently attend First say they he that will defend these Paradoxes must of necessity be forced to grant that there were more Bishops than one in a City in the Apostles dayes which is to betray the cause of Episcopacy and to bring downe a Bishop to the ranke of a Presbyter To this I reply by absolute denying of this consequence for supposing the Scripture-Bishop to be alwayes a Bishop and so the Scripture Elder also how can it follow from thence that there are more such Bishops in any one City T is most evident that this is no way inferr'd upon either or both of my assertions nor is here one word added to prove it is to which I might accommodate any answer T is on the contrary most manifest that whensoever I find mention of Bishops or Elders in the plurall as Act. 20. Phil. 1. c. I interpret them of the Bishops of Asia and the Bishops of Macedonia Bishops of Judaea c. and render my reasons of doing so and consequently affirme them to be the Bishops of divers sure that is not of one Cities The second inconvenience is that I must be forced to grant that there were no Bishops over Presbyters in the Apostles days for if there were no Presbyters there could be no Bishops over Presbyters Here is an evident mistake for I no where say that there were no Presbyters in the Apostles dayes but onely that in the Apostles writings the word Bishops alwayes signifies Bishops and the word Elders either never or but rarely Presbyters Now besides that it is possible for those to be in the time of the Apostles writing which yet for want of occasion are not mentioned in those writings and I that love not negative arguments à testimonio should never have thought fit to conclude there were no Presbyters within the time wherein the severall Bookes of Scripture were written upon that one argument because I could not find them mentioned there besides this I say T is certaine that the Apostles times are somewhat a larger period than the time of the Apostles writings and therefore that what is spoken onely of the later was not meant to be extended to the former For 1. the Apostles continued alive some time after writing their Epistles and secondly some of the Apostles survived others John of whom Christs will was intimated that he should tarry and not die till after the comming of Christ and that Kingdom of his commenced in the destruction of the Jews did accordingly live till Trajanes time and by that time I thinke it probable that the number of believers daily increasing there were as the wants of the Church required Presbyters ordained in many Churches And accordingly in the Dissert p. 229. when I speak of this matter I expresly except S. John and p. 211. I make use of a testimony of Clemens Alexandrinus on purpose to conclude that this Apostle ordein'd Presbyters in Asia after his returne from the Island to which he was banished 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. and to the same matter I elsewhere apply that of Ephiphanius out of the profoundest i.e. antientest Records that as Moses and Aaron tooke to them first the Princes of the people and at length the Sanhedrim of the seventy Elders so the Apostles first constituted Bishops and in processe of time Presbyters also when occasion required as the Bishops assistants and Councell and that upon account of this Analogy with the Sanhedrim they were styled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elders And Ignatius making mention of Presbyters as of a middle degree in the Church betwixt Bishops and Deacons in his i. e. in Trajan's time and that in his Epistles to severall of those Asian Churches Smyrna Ephesus Magnesia Philadelphia Trallis I thinke the argument of great validity to conclude that in that Province that Apostle had in his life time instituted this middle order And therefore I that had so carefully prevented was not to be charged with this crime of affirming there were no Presbyters or Bishops over Presbyters which certainly there were if there were Presbyters under them in the Apostles dayes And third inconvenience they adde that by consequence I must affirme that Ordo Presbyteratus is not Jure Divino But that is no more consequent to my assertion than it was my assertion that there were no Presbyters in the Apostles dayes and therefore I that am guiltlesse of the assertion cannot be charged with the consequents of it John I know was an Apostle and John I believe ordained Presbyters and thence I doubt not to conclude the Apostolicall institution i.e. in effect the Divine right of the order of Presbyters though not of the government of the Church by Presbytery and so I am still cleare from the guilt of that crime which the worst of Papists would abhominate which they
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
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.