A VINDICATION OF THE DISSERTATIONS CONCERNING EPISCOPACIE From the ANSVVERS or EXCEPTIONS offered against them by the London Ministers in their Jus Divinum Ministerii Evangelici By H. HAMMOND D.D. LONDON Printed by J. G. for Richard Royston at the Angel in Ivy-lane 1654. TO THE READER IN Erasmus's distribution of his owne writings into Tomes the 8th we finde thus inscribed by him Octavum occupent Apologiae Me miserum Et hae justum volumen efficient It was his great infelicity that the Apologies and Answers to exceptions and calumnies which he was constreined to write made up an intire large Volume in folio Now though I have that pleasure in the temper of that person which gives me security by the Romanists Proverbe never to be deemed one of their good Catholicks and so may probably partake of some part of his fate yet 't were great insolence in me who have not troubled the World with a tenth proportion to that were with he hath favoured it to expect the Tithe of that consideration which is required to make one capable of that degree of infelicity which lay a full load on him Neverthelesse these few last moneths have given me a tast and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what I am to expect For besides the reproaches of one learned Gentleman to which being barely such I have no one word to retribute but that of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which Christ directs me to I have farther met with some variety Many exceptions though litle of contumely from these Assemblies More and in a very distant Character from a large Preface of Animadversions on the Dâ—ssertations sent me lately from Oxford others also there are which I have not yet had leasure to weigh but soon purpose and hope to do it and if either I discerne my selfe or finde it the opinion of others that what is already said in the Tracts which they oppose be not sufficient to prevent or remove the scruples proposed by them I shall willingly dedicate some time of vacancy to that imployment At the present the Exceptions of the London Ministers have challenged the precedence and here are offered to consideration And because the Praeface from Oxford falls on the same sort of matter Episcopacy and Ignatius's Epistles as they are defended in the Dissertations I purpose God-willing that an Answer to that shall now follow assoone as the Printer can dispatch it And that is all that I had to say to the Reader by way of Praeface THE TABLE CHAP. I. COncerning the Angels of the Churches of Asia Page 9. Section 1. The grounds of affirming them to be Bishops Ibid. Sect. 2. Of Timothy of Onesimus of Policarpe p. 15. Sect. 3. Of the negative argument from S. John's not using the word Bishop Of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Revelation p. 19 Sect. 4. Of S. Johns writings Againe of Diotrephes p. 25 Sect. 5. Of S. John's being Bishop of Asia Of the Apostles being Bishops p. 29 Sect. 6. Of the word Angel and Star pretended to be common to all Ministers Of Messenger and Embassadour The singularity of the word Angel p. 35 Sect. 7. Of their exception to our arguing from Symbols Of Bishop and Elder being the same p. 38 Sect. 8. Of the singularity of each Angel The objections from the use of the plurall number p. 41 Sect. 9. Of the Elders at Ephesus Act. 20. p. 45 Sect. 10. Of expressing a number by singulars A Church by a Candlestick Of the seven Angels Rev. 8. p. 47 Sect. 11. Of the Epistles being sent to the whole Church not to the Bishop only Of Timothy Onesimus and Polycarp being Bishops of some of the Asian Churches without any charge of Apostacy falling on them by this meanes p. 50 Sect. 12. Of Timothies being an Evangelist that it hinders not his being a Bishop p. 55 Sect. 13. Of the Bishops at Ephesus Of the plural number in the Epistle to the Angel of Smyrna p. 56 Sect. 14. Of Beza's interpretation of the Praesident p. 57. Sect. 15. Of Dr. Reynolds interpretation of the Bishop in Cyprian Of Ordination by Bishops not without Presbyters from the Testimones of Cyprian and Fermilian p. 51 Sect. 16. Of the Churches of Asia being Metropoliticall Of the paucity of believers p. 54 Sect. 16. Of modelling Churches according to the Government of the Roman state Of exemplars of Metropolitans among the Jewes Testimonies of the Apostles instituting Metropolitans p. 67 Sect. 17. Of the objection against Metropoles from the seven Starres in seven Churches p. 71 Sect. 18. Of the use of the word Bishop for Archbishop in Tertullian Of Angel in Christs Epistle p. 64 Sect. 19. 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 p. 75 CHAP. II. OF the equivalence of the words Bishop and Elder in the New Testament p. 92 Sect. 1. Foure sorts of equivalence of these words proposed Ibid. Sect. 2 Of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 95 Sect. 3. Of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elder p. 100 Sect. 4. Of reverence to Antiquity and the interpretations of the Antients Of Praelatists disagreement among themselves 102. Sect. 5. 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 p. 105 Sect 6. A first confession objected and vindicated Of the Ephesine Presbyters being all the Praelates of Asia Elders Aldermanni p. 108 Sect. 7. A second confession of the Bishops Phil. 1. 1. being Bishops of that whole Province Philippi a Metropolis and a Colony p. 110 Sect. 8. A third confession of Timothies being an Archbishop Of the qualifications 1 Tim. 3. 2 belonging to Bishops Of the Bishops being worthy of double-honour though he never preach Of the word and Doctrine Of the Presbytery 1 Tim. 4 Of Rebuking and receiving accusation against an Elder p. 112 Sect. 9. A fourth confession of Titus being Archbishop of Creet p. 116 Sect. 10. A fift charge of contrariety to Scripture answered Of visitation of the sick belonging to Elders James 5. p. 118 Sect. 11. A last objection from Act. 21. 18. and. 14. 3. and 11. 30. answered Elders for Rulers or Bishops p. 122 CHAP. III. COncerning the Opinion of Antiquity in this Question Page 129. Sect. 1. The Testimonies of Clemens Romanus Bishops and Deacons the onely offices at the first Corinth Metropolis of Achaia What 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies The Apostles care to prevent contentions about Episcopacy Hegesippus's testimony of the contentions at Corinth Clement a Bishop p. 129. Sect. 2. The Testimony of Policarpe That he was himselfe a Bishop His mention of Ignatius's Epistles fit to give authority to them being so confirmed as it is by a series of the Antients p. 139 Sect. 3. A vindication of Ignatius's Epistles Vossius's edition of them and the Archbishops of
with Answers and refutations of the principall Objections of Doctor Blondel and Walo Messalinus doe really stand in force and appeare not to be refuted now in whole or in part by these men who have often attempted to refute them I shall then leave them seriously and Christianly to consider but this one thing and to returne their anger not to me but to themselves what security of grounds they can build upon in their present practices particularly in their assuming to themselves that power or authority which doth not belong to them For 1. if the Praefecture in each Church were as by Christ to the Apostles so by the Apostles given to the singular Governour or Bishop by them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 constituted over all and from that time to this regularly continued in a succession of Bishops in every Church and secondly if those which are now called Presbyters were by those who first instituted them placed in a second rank as of dignity so of power and never had all that power committed to them which to the Bishop was committed particularly not that of Ordeining the meanest Deacon much lesse Presbyters with power of Ordeining other Presbyters and thirdly if they on whose authority they most depend S. Hierome the Presbyter c. doe expresly assure them that the Presbyters in their times had not power of Ordination but acknowledge the Bishop superior to the Presbyter in that and it is not imaginable how that power should be conveyed to any Presbyter now which was not vested in any at that time nor pretended to be so in above a thousand yeares after them And lastly if no man may take that which is not given him from Heaven or give that which he hath not which the Scripture yeilds to as a rule by which both John Baptist John 3. 27. and Christ himselfe Luk 12. 14. was to be judged and the Apostle Heb. 5. 4. hath applied that generall rule to this particularity of Priesthood in the Church viz. that no man may 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 assume an honour to himselfe but who is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 called by God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 advanced by God saith Theophylact either immediately or mediately either by the Apostles or by those which received it successively from them all others being truly affirmed by the Antients 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to leap into the honour 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and to corrupt the rule or law by which they should be guided then I say upon what solid grounds can they satisfie Conscience who without all pretence of necessity which by some is here made use of as an excuse the regular way being open and plaine before them have run before they were sent assumed that power to themselves which belongs not to them nor was ever by any which had it bestowed upon them I doe not foresee any more here necessary to be premised to our future debates and shall therefore hasten to them as to an unpleasant progresse that I would willingly be at the end of and commit all to the grace and unerring judgement of him whom we all professe to serve and obey in this as in all other things CHAP. I. Concerning the Angels of the Churches of Asia Section I. The grounds of affirming them to be Bishops FOr the vindicating of the Dissertations from all the exceptions which are offered against them in the Booke which I have now before me It is no whit necessary that I give the Reader any the most cursory view of the whole Booke I shall therefore fall in though abruptly on the sixt Chapter of the second part of it For although in some of the former Chapters of that part some indeavours are used to assert Presbytery against Episcopacy by Arguments so frequently produced by that party that they were every one foreseen and in the Dissertations largely evidenced to have no validity in them yet it falls out somewhat to mine owne and the Readers ease that I am not personally called into the lists till the beginning of the sixt Chapter which by the signall of some Latine words in the Margine out of Dissert 4. c. 4. Sect. 4. have markt me out as the person against whom that Chapter was intirely designed and I shall readily answer the call and not refuse the paines to examine every Section of that Chapter 2. The subject of this Chapter is the pretended as they please to stile it Episcopacy of the seven Asian Angels And thus they begin their assault The second Scripture ground brought to prove the Divine Right of Praelacy is from the Angels of the seven Churches of Asia These Angels say they the Assertors of Prelacy were seven single persons and as one hath lately written not onely Bishops but Metropolitans and Archbishops This is said with so much confidence that all men are condemned as blind or wilfull that endeavour to oppose it And it is reckoned as one of the great prodigies of this unhappy Age that Men should still continue blind and not see light enough in this Scripture to build the great Fabrick of Episcopacy by Divine Right upon 3. This is it seemes the first crime chargeable on mee as Author of the Dissertations that I am confident of my Assertion and condemne all others as blind or wilfull that indeavour to oppose it And although this be no competent way of disproving what is asserted for it is no universall maxime or Datum among the Objecters that confident asserting should be lookt on as a character of falsity yet I that would much more be ashamed to have beene presumptuous than mistaken and deeme it not a sinne to have erred modestly am concerned to avert the envy of this their Prooeme and to give this essay how farre any the most moderate speeches may be disguised and deformed by a disadvantageous interpretation 4. These words in tantâ luce lie thus in the Dissertations Ad tertium accedo I proceede to the third thing that which concernes the Angels in the Apocalypse that by them are noted so many prefects of the chiefe Cities or Churches in Asia whom you may call not onely Bishops but Primates Enarchs or Metropolitans Each of these things must be briefly taken notice of First that each of these were single and properly called Bishops So Andreas Caesariensis pronounceth of them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The seven Ephori inspectors or Bishops so called from the Greeke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Inspectors directly equivalent to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 parallel to the number of the seven Churches are in that place of the Apâ—calypse called Angels This title of Angel is sufficiently knowne from Malach. 2. 7. to belong to the chiefe Priest of the Jewes for hee is called the Angel of the Lord of Hosts as the person from whom the Law was to be derived to the people Further more these Angels in that vision of Johns are likened to so many Starres which seeing Christ 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
have already been utterly demolished so also the Testimonies of Isidore Hispalensis and the Councell of Aquen produced for the proofe of their third Proposition concerning the Presbyters having an intrinsick power to ordaine Ministers will immediately vanish in like manner For as it is evident that that place in that councell of Aquen is for nine Chapters together transcribed out of Isidore and consequently the Testimonies out of him and that councell are but one and the same thing twice repeated to increase the number so 't is as evident that what is by them said is taken from St. Hierome and can no farther be extended either in respect of the authority or the matter of the Testimony than in St. Hierome it hath appeared to extend And therefore as the * words cited by these men out of them are no more than these that solum propter authoritatem Clericorum ordinatio consecratio reservata est summo sacerdoti That Presbyters have many things common with Bishops onely in respect of authority or for the preserving it intire and the unity of each Church which depended on that in St. Hierom's opinion the Ordination and consecration of Clerks i. e. of all Presbyters and Deacons was reserved to the chiefe Priest i. e. the Bishop which how farre it is from concluding what it was brought to prove the intrinsick power of Presbyters to ordaine Ministers I leave to any Reader to passe judgement And yet truly this doth it as well as their one other antient Testimonie that of Leo set out in their front out of his 88. Epistle concerning the Consecration of Presbyters and Deacons and some other things Quae omnia solis deberi Pontificibus authoritate canonum praecipitur All which that they should be due to the Bishops and to none else it is commanded by the authority of the â—anons Who would ever have thought fit from such words as these which affirme this privilege to be reserved peculiarly to the Bishops and that the authority of the Canons so requires to conclude that the Presbyters had this intrinsick power As if all that the Canons deny Presbyters were infallibly their due to enjoy and the Argument demonstrative that it was their Originall and intrinsick due because the Canons deny it What they adde of Ischyras Prop. 6. that being deposed from being a Presbyter because made by Colluthus who was but a Presbyter himselfe and not a Bishop this was done not because the act of Colluthus was against the Canon of Scripture but onely because it was against the Canons of some councels is somewhat of the same nature with the former and will be best judged of by the relation of the Fact which in the story of those times is thus made by Socrates 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He adventured on a thing worthy of many Deaths for being never admitted to the Priesthood and assuming to himselfe the name of an Elder he dared to doe the things belonging to a Priest A censure which certeinly sets the fault somewhat higher than the transgressing of the Canons of some Councels Two Testimonies more I shall touch on before I returne to the pursuit of my proposed Method and then I shall render the reason of this Excursion For the confirmation of their second Proposition concerning Ordination one Testimony they produce from the Synod ad Quercum Ann. 403. where it was brought as an accusation against Chrysostome 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That he made Ordinations without the company and sentence of the Clergy Another from the councell of Carthage Can. 20. Vt Episcopus sine Concilio Clericorum sâ—orum non ordinet That a Bishop ordeine not Clerkes without the Councell of his owne Clerkes and Can. 2. Cum Ordinatur Presbyter Episcopo eum benedicente manum super caput ejus tenente etiam omnes Presbyteri qui prasentes sunt manus suas juxta manum Episcopi super caput illius teneant When a Presbyter is Ordrined as the Bishop blesseth him and layes his hand on his head let all the Presbyters also that are present lay their hands on his Head by the Hand of the Bishop And the conclusion deduced from these Testimones and the forementioned of Cyprian and Fermilian is this that Ordination by Bishops without the assistance of his Presbyters was alwayes forbidden and opposed How truly this is inferred from the Praemâ—sses will soone be judged by a view of the Testimonies For the first this is the truth of the Story Theophilus a guilty person and as such cited to answer what was objected against him making use of the envy under which Chrysostome then laboured shifted the Scene and becamse his judge nay as Photius tells us he and the rest of that Conventicle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that were Chrysostome ' s greatest enemies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were at once Judges and Accusers and Witnesses of all that was charged against him And therefore we already see what heed is to be given to the accusatiâ—n of those Fathers ad quercum and how valid an argument can be deduced from it And we shall the better guesse at it if we consider also what other particulars were in the same manner that this was charged against him set downe by Photius in his Bibliotheca The 23. charge was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that the Bath was heated for him alone and that after he had bathed Serapion shuts the passage into the Bath that no body else might bath The 25. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that he ate alone living like one of the Cyclopes and betwixt these two new found crimes comes in this in the midst being the 24. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that he ordained many that had no Testimonialls which being set down by Photius as the summe of that charge referres us indeed to the ground on which their charge was built of his ordaining without a Councell and against the minde of his Clergy those testimonialls and so the approbation of the person by the Clergy being generally a good preparation to the receiving Orders but doth not at all prove that a Bishop might not ordaine without assistance of his Presbyters or that it was alwayes forbidden any more than it proves that eating or bathing alone was alwayes forbidden also As for that of the 4. Councell of Carthage Can. 20. They have set downe but halfe the Canon the whole runnes thus Vt Episcopus sine concilio Clericorum non ordinetâ— ita ut civium conniventiam Testimonium quaerat That the Bishop ordain not without his councell of Clergy so that he seeke the liking and testimoniall of the Inhabitants Which againe onely serves to shew the use of the assistent Presbyters to helpe the Bishop to a due knowledge of the person to be ordained and this they know we Praelatists assent to and approve of but is no argument of the unlawfulnesse of sole ordination or of any power that the Presbyters have in the conferring of Orders So
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.
to the Apostles not as to a Common councell of sociall Rulers but as so many severall planters and Governours of the Church each having all power committed to him and depending on no conjunction of any one or more Apostles for the exercise of it And this is largely and clearly deduced Dissert 3. c. 1. 2. 3. 4. And this power being by them derived to Bishops in each City in the same manner as they used it themselves which is also farther evidenced and vindicated c. 5. c. this was deemed a first competent proofe of this matter and as a confirmation of it it was observable that the first Bishops made by them were in the very Scripture called Apostles James the Bishop of Jerusalem c. Diss 4. c. 3. 8. A second principall proofe of Scripture is taken from the severall mentions of the so many Churches of Asia and the so many Angels assigned to them one to each as a singular Governour or Bishop in the Revelation And in discourse of these wee have found great evidence of the fact to authorize us to improve the conclusion a little higher than was necessary to the defence of the maine cause viz. to affirme of these Angels that each of them was an Archbishop or Metropolitan and having done so to discerne upon undeniable grounds that there were many other such mentioned in the Scripture though not under that title as James the brother of the Lord Metropolitan of all Judea Titus of all Crete with an hundred Cities in it c. 9. And the wayes of according all other Scriptures with these have been briefly these 1. By observing this difference betwixt Cities and Metropoles as the true cause and occasion of the mentions of many Bishops in not of one City meaning thereby the Bishops of all the Cities under that Metropolis as Phil. 1. 1. Act. 20. 17. Secondly by examining the Nature of all the words which I conceived to be used in Scripture for Bishops as beside Apostle and Angel forementioned 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bishop 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ruler 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Doctor 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pastor 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 President 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elder and in the Fathers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chiefe Priest and Sacerdos Priestâ— each denoting Dignity and Authority and all cleared to be in their own nature applicable and by the circumstances of the Context to be actually applied to the singular Governours in each City most of them constantly so and that one of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if not constantly so yet very rarely otherwise And this is done Dissert 4. c. 7. and so to the end of that Diss Thirdly by observing the paucity of believers in many Cities in the first Plantations which made it unnecessary that there should by the Apostles be ordeined any more than a Bishop and Deacon one or more in each City and that this was accordingly done by them at the first is approved by the most undeniable antient Records Such as those 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the profoundest Histories out of which Epiphanius makes this Observation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Where there wanted Bishops and there were found persons worthy of the Office Bishops were constituted but where there was no multitude there none were found among them to be constituted Presbyters and they satisfied themselves with a Bishop alone in a place Onely the Bishop could not possibly be without a Deacon and accordingly the Apostle tooke care that the Bishop should have his Deacons to minister to him That which is thus cited by Epiphanius out of those Antient Records is found clearly affirmed by Clemens Romanus an Apostolicall person and witnesse of the Apostles practice that they being sent out by Christ as hee by his Father went out Preaching the Gospell and proclaiming it through Regions and Cities 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they constituted their first fruits into Bishops and Deacons of those which should afterward believe To both which wee shall againe adde what Ephiphanius prefaceth in that place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that when the preaching was new the Apostle St. Paul wrote agreeably to the present state of affaires We have here so cleare an account of the reason of the Apostles immediate subjoyning of Deacons to Bishops Phil. 1. 1. and 1 Tim. 3. viz. because those were the onely two Orders then constituted in every Church that these two places which are made use of by the adversaries against us are most punctuall evidences of the Truth of ours and of the unseasonablenesse of their pretentions 10. As for the Testimonies out of the first Antiquity The ground-worke I have chosen to lay in Ignatius his Epistles because the Testimonies thence are so many and so evident and the Writer so neere the Apostles time that holy men being Martyr'd in the 10. of Trajan to whose Reigne S. John lived and most of his Epistles written to the very Churches of Asia planted by St. John and the Bishops of many of them named by him and of one Bishop the Presbyters under him that if that one Authors Testimonies be attended to there is an absolute decision of the whole matter on the Prelatists side To which purpose I have also vindicated these Epistles from all that hath been objected to them in these late yeares and asserted their Authority by as antient and authentick evidences as can be vouched for any antient piece next the Holy Scriptures themselves and contented my selfe with the most pure and uncorrupted Copies and Editions of it 11. In accord with these Testimonies I have also produced many others out of Clemens Romanus Hegesippus Polycarpe Papias Polycrates Iustin Jrenaeus Clemens Alexandrinus Tâ—rtullian and as many of the first times as have said any thing to this matter and found a full consent in all and in most irrefragable suffrages which conclude this whole controversie on the Prelatists side To which I have also added some few observations of unquestionable truth as 1. That of the continuance of the use of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elder to signifie Bishop in our Modern sense among some of these most antient Church writers whereas the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is never used by any but for a singular Governour Secondly that of the distinct Congregations of Iewish and Gentile Christians in the same City the grounds of which are evident in Scripture and consequently of the severall Governours or Bishops over them which was usefull for the removing some seeming difficulties in the Catalogues of the first Bishops of Rome Antiâ—ch c. and some other the like not for the serving the Necessities of our Cause but as supernumerary and ex abundanti And upon these and such like heads of probation we have built our plea descending also to a particular survey of Saint Hierom's testimonies which are by the adversaries principally made use of against us And if what is thus copiously deduced in the Dissertations together
said to beare or carry in his Right-hand Apoc. 1. 16. 20. 1 2. an argument of competent validity may be drawne from thence that this dignity and power of them in the Church is if not immediately instituted yet approved and confirmed by Christ especially when in these so many parts of this Epistle Christ himselfe hath written to every of them under this title of honour and dignity In the presence of so much light that some Men should still continue blind is to be numbred among the prodigies of this worst and most unhappy age For as to that which from the one word yo◠in the plural c. 4. 24. I finde objected by some against so many single mentions of the Angels one in every Church that will immediately vanish c. 5. These words thus intirely set downe have a face very distant from that so much confidence and censoriousnesse that I am here charged with by the Provinciall Synod For 1. For the conclusion deduced from the mention of these Angels 't is not the Divine Right of Prelacy which phrase might yet have beene reconciled with rules of Sobriety and Modesty as well as the Jus Divinum of Presbytery but Christs approbation and confirmation of this dignity and power of Bishops which conclusion hath evident grounds in those Texts which mention Christ's holding them in his Hand and his addressing an Epistle to them supposing onely what is undertaken to be evidenced by other mediums that these Angels were single persons in each Church 6. Secondly that which is by me so confidently affirmed is not as this learned Assembly is pleased to suggest that these Angels were Metropolitans or Archbisops That they were such is afterwards as a distinct matter in the next Chapter proposed in a much more moderate style statim credibile fiet it will straitwayes become credible and with no more shew of confidence then the premises which are there at large set down will Authorize 7. These be two competent essayes to begin with by which we may proportion our expectations But there is yet a third which hath somewhat more of injustice in it to mention my so much confidence in asserting but never to take notice of the grounds produced whereon this confidence as farre as it extends is built the want of which is so constantly the one thing which renders confidence unseasonable or blameable that it is not in the power of any man to have apprehended grounds as proper to induce a conclusion and to suspend the beliefe and confidence of the truth of that conclusion which is so inferred The injustice I say is there not taking notice of the mediums whereon the confidence is founded very competent to inferre a conclusion in that stile wherein it was there inferred if they had been pleased to advertise their Readers of it 8. The inference lies thus The Angel of each Church of Asia was a single person therefore not a Colledge or Consistory of Presbyters and the singularity of the person is there supposed to be evidenced sufficiently by that which is so many times repeated in the Text the Angel of the Church of Ephesus the Angel of the Church of Smyrna and the like by the testimony of Andreas Caesariensis the Principall Annotator or Interpreter of the Revelation transcribed by Aretas in expresse words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the number of the Bishops equall to the number of the Churches and by the answer rendred to that one Objection which is brought by the Presbyterians against the singularity of the person of each Angel 9. Secondly this singular person was a Bishop in that notion of the word which signifies a precedence of power and dignity over all others in that Church This againe was made evident both by the forementioned singularity of his power and person in each Church and farther by the propriety of the title bestowed on him an Angel such as among the Jewes the chiefe Priest was styled Malac. 2. to which matter I shall now superadde one Testimony which Photius hath out of Diodorus Siculus concerning the Jewes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Him they call the High Priest and deeme him to be to them an Angel or Messenger of the commands of God a Commissioner of Heaven impowered from thence for the execution of his Office among them 10. This by the way gives us the reason of the denomination because as Angels doe not onely carry up our Prayers to God but also bring downe Gods Commands to us so did the High priest under the Law This dialect is also said to be derived from the Hebrewes to the Aegyptians who call their chiefe Priest Angel also And then how fitly the parallel runs betwixt the High Priest among the Jewes and the Bishop in the Christian Church taken in the Prelatists notion of him was a theme which seemed not to need any length of harangue to performe or illustrate it And yet after a Section spent to cleare that one difficulty of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 you in the plurall c. 2. 24. there are two Sections added more for the farther fortifying of this evidence 1. From the Councell of Chalcedon Act. 2. which from Timothy till the time of their Session numbers 27. Bishops in one of these Sees that of Ephesus all ordeined there and Timothy we know being ordeined by the laying on of St. Pauls hands 2 Tim. 1. 6. will divolve it to that Orginall Apostoliacll institution and 2. from Polycrates who was borne soone after St. Iohns dayes and is a witnesse of a competent antiquity and affirmes himselfe to be the eight Bishop of that See From both which testimonies of the Catologue and number of Bishops ascending to St. Timothy as the first of that ranke who certainly was constituted there before the Epistle of Christ to the Angel of that Church the conclusion is obvious and irrefragable that either Timothy or some successor of his was personally the Angel to which the Epistle was addrest and I professe not to wish for a greater evidence to justifie a Prelatist in his desire to live in obedience to that order so signally confirmed by Christ 11. The like is in the next Section produced out of Irenaeus l. 3. c. 3. concerning the Angel of the Church of Smyrna Irenaeus lived in the time of Polycarp that antient Primitive Martyr and being a youth had the honour to see that venerable old Man and of him he affirmes that he was not onely a Disciple of the Apostles and converst with many that saw Christ but that also hee was sent to Asia and constituted Bishop in the Church of Smyrna And if there needed any more light after so cleare and authentick a testimony which againe concludes either Polycarpe or some successor of his to be the Angel of the Church of Smyrna to whom Christ addresseth his Epistle there is another added out of Tertullian a Writer of great Antiquity and reputation for knowledge in the
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
it would by Presbyterians be as readily expounded to signifie a Presbyter or colledge of such for so certainly they have done in other places and truly with as much reason and satisfaction to any impartiall judge as they have affirmed the word Angel in each Church to denote such And therefore 7. Thirdly I shall demand would the Apostle St. John's using the name Bishop be at all usefull to the Prelatists interests to conclude that there was such an Office in the Church in his time or would it not If not then sure it is not to our prejudice that hee hath not mentioned that name and then this whole consideration is perfectly to no purpose If it would then sure St. Pauls and St. Lukes frequent mentions of them I may adde St. Peter also will supply St. John's omissions and conclude there were Bishops in their time and that was long before St. Johns death if it had been considered 8. Fourthly when it is said that St. John frequently names the name Presbyter in the Apocalyps 't is not imaginable that they should thinke the Author of the Dissertations could receive any prejudice from thence when hee hath avowed to believe that those 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elders mentioned in those so many places of the Revelation were the 24. Bishops of Judaea sitting in Councell at Jerusalem their Metropolis encompassing James the Bishop there together with the foure living creatures denoting the foure Apostles that were joyned with them in the councell and the 7. Lamps the emblemes of the 7. Deacons attending Of which matter till they have disproved what is commodiously deduced Dissert 4. c. 20. Sect. 10. I shall have no need farther to inlarge it being perfectly uselesse to our present inquiry that either the word Bishop or Elder should be used by S. John for a single Prefect in the Christian Church supposing as now we do in the Objection and t is but a begging of the question in the respondent to suppose the contrary that the word Angel is a notation of it 9. By this it appeares fiftly how little wee incommodated by the position of these Elders in the Revelation placed neerest to the throne of Christ in his Church for supposing as I doe that Christ is by way of vision represented there under the person of the Bishop of Jerusalem sitting in councell and encompassed on each side with a Semicircle of Thrones on which sat the 24 Bishops of Judea I can well allow these 24. call them Elders or what you please to be neerest to that middle throne whereon Christ is seated And truely if it should be otherwise interpreted of Presbyters in the moderne notion of the word it would be hard to make the other parts of the vision to beare proportion with that phansy For I must suppose according to St. John's words that in the vision these thrones were set up in Heaven And then I shall demand was that a representation of any councell or Judicature on Earth or not If it were not then nothing can be inferred thence in favour of Presbyters more than of Bishops for of both these we speake as of Officers on Earth But if it were then applying it to Presbyters it must follow that in the midst of them there is some other invironed on each side by them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sitting upon that throne of principall dignity before whom also they on the other thrones must fall downe v. 10 or else the parallel will not hold throughout and the least that can be signified hereby will be superiority of dignity in him that sits on that middle throne above all the 24. Elders which will be deemed to exceede the case of a Prolocutor or Moderator of an Assembly which is the ut most that the Presbyterian 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or equality can admit of but much more commodiously agrees to the Metropolitan of all Iudea sitting in a Nationall Councell with the Bishops about him for of these we doubt not to affirme that they were as much inferior to him as this representation doth pretend them to be 10. As for the sence affixt to it by the Assemblers that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are Presbyters in the moderne notion and that he that sits in the midst of them is Christ this is against all analogy and rules of interpreting a mining and confounding the Originall with the Copy the type with the Antitype interpreting one part of the visiâ—n as if it were in Heaven for it was there where Christ did sit as Judge and the other as if it were on Earth for sure the Presbyters in this notion are to be considered as there And this is a very sufficient prejudice against their interpretation if there were not enough besides and such as no way presseth our way of setting it as hath been already manifested 11. Sixtly for his calling himselfe a Presbyter Ep. 2. I answer that as farre as this allegation hath truth it hath no force in it at all against our pretentions He doth indeed call himselfe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Elder we fitly render it noting thereby according to analogy with the solemne notion of the word both among sacred and prophane Writers set downe at large Dissert 4. c. 19. a person of authority in the Church of Christ an Apostle first and then the supreme Governour of the whole Iewish Church in Asia which is but proportionable to Saint Pauls beginning his Epistles with Paul an Apostle or Commissioner of Iesus Christ placed in that power in the Church by Christ himselfe and with the same style in the front of Saint Peters Epistles onely with this Characteristick note peculiar to Saint Iohn in his Gospell and Epistles of omitting the expression of his owne name And then all that this text is of force to doe is to prove that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth not import a Presbyter in our moderne use of the word governing in common with other Presbyters but rather a singular Governor of the Church such as Bishops are by us contested to be And so the Greek Scholiasts have expressed it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 By the word Elder he calls himselfe Bishop And this 't is certaine is for the interest of the Author of the Dissertations and no way to his prejudice if it had been adverted by them that produce it 12. Seventhly when 't is said that in Saint Iohn's dayes some New expressions were used in the Christian Church which were not in Scripture as the Lords day and the Word I professe not to comprehend what advantage to their praetensions could be designed or aimed at in this part of the consideration For 1. how can it truly be said that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lord's day which is in the Revelation and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Word which is in Saint Iohn's Gospell were not in Scripture I must suppose the meaning is that they were not in any other writings of
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
1. it is apparent in the Text that this Diâ—trephes whom Walo Messalinus a good friend to the praetensions of the Assemblers describes so as will conclude him a meâ—re Presbyterian Noluit saith he agnoscore superiorem aliquâ—m in Presbyteros habentem potestatem he would not acknowledge any superior having power over Presbyters contended for superiority not onely over his equals but over Saint Iohn himselfe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 faith that Apostle he 〈◊〉 not us yeilds no obedience gives no heed to our letter of directions This certainly belongs not to the superiority or dignity of Bishops which reserves the Primacy to the Apostles intire and no way clasheth with it and onely pretends to that power and office of duty which for the preserving of unity and the good of the flock the Apostles thought fit to intrust and commit to them 5. Secondly Diotrophes was not as farre as appeares or we have reason to conjecture ordeined to any office of power in the Asian Church committed to that Apostles care but of himselfe without any mission nay expressely against the Apostles consent was willing to assume and exercise this power and is but an example of Corah's sedition and presumptuous humour and that is inevitably the case of the Presbyterian unlesse he can shew his commission for the power he pretends to all one with that of the Gnosticks censured by Saint Iude under the style of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the gainesaying of Coraâ—â— and this no way belongs or is appliable to the practice of the Bishop who by Commission from the Apostle not by any ambition or presumption of his owne regularly ascends to this degree of office and dignity in the Church and useth it as regularly also in subordination to all his superiors 6. On this Occasion the Dissertations have offered a Dilemma to these Disputants which I should be willing to heare answered by them in this forme Either Diotrephes exercised in the Church the power of the Bishop in the notion of a singular Praefect assuming power over the Presbyters or he did not If he did not then is this consideration presently at an end Diotrephes is falsly accused and the innocent Bishop unjustly wounded through his sides who it seems was no Bishop But if it be said he did then I demand Why is not Diotrophes checkt by S. John for that presumption of affecting a power over his equals And why doth the whole charge lye another way that he received not S. Iohn's Letters nor paid due obedience to them Or why is that very thing charged so heavily on the Bishops in our age and punisht so severely in them which the Apostle living and seeing and upon occasion taking notice of Diotrephes his insolence doth not so much as reprehend or accuse in him 7. For as to the Epithet which he bestowes upon him that he was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one that loved the praeeminence supposing that were the title of his fault yet that extends not the Apostles speech to censuring or blaming the use of that power but onely the ambition and affectation of it which were otherwise lawfull to be enjoy'd as when t is noted in the Pharisees that they did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 love or affect the uppermost seats in the Synagogues which otherwise simply to have sat in had implyed no crime of theirs for to this very end that some body should sit in them they were certainly erected and 't is known that there was among them a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 head of the Consistory and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Governor of the Synagogue to whom that seat belonged by God's appointment 8. Nay for the very desire as farre as is exprest by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Tim. 3. 1. desiring and coveting it is allowed by the Apostle to be terminated in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the office of a Bishop 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as a good and consequently a desireable worke and if Diotrephes be supposed guilty of any other it may safely be yeilded to have been a fault in him without praejudice to the good office which he so vitiously and criminously affected according to that of Theodoret that the Apostle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 accuses not the desire simply but the desire of rule 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and teacheth to desire not the honour but the vertue not to covet the dignity but to seeke the worke of the dignity the taske to which it belongs By all which and much more added in the Dissertations it is evident how little advantage hath accrued to the Assemblers from their mention of Diotrephes out of Saint John and by consequence from their second consideration Section V. Of St. John's being Bishop of Asia Of the Apostles being Bishops NOw succeeds a third consideration viz. That the same Authors that say that S. John made Polycarpe Bish of Smyrna that S. Peter made Ignatius Bishop of Antioch do also say that St. John himselfe sat many yeares Bishop of Ephesus and was the Metropolitan of all Asia which say they is an evident demonstration to us that these Authors did not use the word Bishop in a Prelaticall sense For it is certaine that the Apostles cannot be properly called Bishops For though they doe eminently containe the Episcopall Office yet they were not formally Bishops For this were to degrade the Apostle and to make their Office Ordinary and perpetuall this were to exalt the Bishop above his degree and make him an Apostles and to make the Apostle a Bishop It doth not much differ from madnesse to say that Peter or any one of the Apostles were properly Bishops as learned Whitaker saith whom wee shall have occasion to cite to this purpose hereafter 2. Whether this consideration be likely to contribute any thing to their advantage save onely by amusing the Reader and keeping him longer in expectation that somewhat may possibly be produced to the disparagement of our plea I desire may distinctly be considered by these degrees 3. First I acknowledge that stile the same Authors to belong truly to antient Writers produced by mee in the Dissertations who as they doe affirme St. John to have constituted Policarpe Bishop of Smyrna Diss 4. c. 5. Sect. 5. and St. Peter to have placed Ignatius Bishop of Antioch Diss 5. c. 1. Sect. 18. so they consent also that St. John sat Bishop of Ephesus and Metropolitane of all Asia so Eusebius frequently that after his returne from his banishment 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he administred or governed the Churches there i.e. in Asia and as he cites it lib. 3. cap. 31. out of Policrates his Epistle died there So the antient Writer of the Martyrdom of Timothy in Photius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Being recalled by Nerva's decree he sat downe at Ephesus and himselfe personally with seven Bishops his adsessors those in all probability the Bishops of the seven Churches in the Revelation
figuratively as it is evident it was not and was so confest when it appeared usefull to the Objectors that it should not yet it being the singularity of the person wherein our argument is founded our argument is not founded on that which is mystical For certainely this number is a plaine Grammatical notation of a singular person and that is proofe enough that it was not a collective body a Presbytery or Consistory that is meant by it And in this all the controversie betwixt us and the adversary consists whether it was in many or in one in each Church that the Ecclesiastical jurisdiction was vested and that is sufficiently decided by that which is cleare and unâ—igurative in this Text and cannot be imagined otherwise but by forcing some figure on it by which one Angel may be set for more Ministers which if it be done would not by their rule be argumentative 4. Thirdly Whereas it is suggested that this which we conclude from hence is opposite to many expresse testimonies of Scripture I have no more to say in this place where this is onely affirmed but not attempted to be proved but to professe my perswasion and assurance the truth of which must be in the processe of this discourse contested that there is no such thing but on the contrary that the whole Scripture and practice and writings of the first ages of the Church and the succeeding through all the world agree directly with what I conclude from the singularity of the Angel And when in the following words the testimonies are expressed to be those which make Bishops and Presbyters to be one and the same This also will immediately vanish when it is remembred what is largely deduced in the Dissertations that the word Bishop in the Scripture is never used for a Presbyter in our Moderne notion of the word but constantly for the one single Governor in a Church or City and that if there be any truth in that which is here affirmed Presbyters must be taken in a notion distant from that in which now we use it and signifie as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath already been said to doe the singular Bishop in each Church and 't is certaine such an identity of the names will never be deemed contrary to what we have concluded from the Angel but directly confirme it for us 5. And although here is no occasion in this place to prove and make good this assertion in each part of it the first positivè that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Bishop in Scripture alwayes signifies the singular Bishop the second suppositivè that if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bishop and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elder be one and the same in Scripture it must be by interpreting 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elder so as to signifie a Bishop in all place yet 't is certaine that this is already done at large in Dissert 4. cap. 6. Sect. 19 20 21 22. and shall here againe be repeated and vindicated when the proper place requires it which I foresee it will speedily doe 6. In the meane I must take leave to expresse my present sense and hope that others will not thinke it too hasty that no one of these five Considerations nor consequently all of them together have at all praejudged our Conclusion now in hand inferred from that of the Epistle of Christ to the 7. Angels of the 7. Churches Section VIII Of the singularity of each Angel The objections from the use of the plurall number THese considerations being thus laid as their foundation and I suppose being already removed from superseding or hindring our superstructure The next part of their method is having mentioned our objection from the singularity of each Angel's person to whom Christ's message or Epistle is sent and the conclusion of an high Prelatist from hence that these Angels are not onely Bishops but Archbishops to apply solid and every way sufficient answers to this Objection 2. In this proposall of our Objection I shall not need to inquire who this high Prelatist is The former intimations and directions have perswaded me that I am lookt on as this Objector though it be sufficiently knowne that the most Reverend Archbishop of Armagh Lord Primate of Ireland hath many yeares since deduced this conclusion in every part from this Text and might if they had pleased have secured me from the opinion either of novelty or singularity in the Assertion 3. But I shall most willingly assume the burthen and proceed to the view of the solid and every way sufficient answers which are said to be given to this Objection which though they be it seemes to be fetcht out of Smectymnuus c. yet it happens well that we shall without need of consulting those larger volumes find them here with more ease reduced to two heads One that the word Angel signifies not a singular person the second that if it did it will not at all advantage the Episcopal cause 4. These two I confesse if either of them be solidly proved will utterly drive us from our hold The onely question at present is whether in either part the proofes be solid and of this we must now inquire and first of the former of them 5. This they thus propose That the word Angel is not to be taken 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not individually but collectively for all the Pastors and Ministers of the respective Churches 6. But before their proofes for such an assertion that the Angel of such a Church which is certainly an individual as much as the Bishop of such a Diocese is not yet to be taken individually they first adde their confession that this answer is called a poore shift a vaine conceipt c. but promise such reasons for the justification of it which cannot be answered 7. To the view of these unanswerable Reasons therefore we shall now hasten And the first reason is because our Saviour speakes to the Angel often in the plural number Rev. 2. 21. But unto you I say and the rest of Thyatira and so Rev. 2. 10. and 13. By which say they it is evident that by the word Angel is not meant one singular person but the collective body of Rulers 8. To this first reason I shall answer by separating that one text of Thyatira from the other two and all that are of the same nature with them and speake first of these two and remind them 1. that in an Epistlâ— unquestionably addrest to a particular person others under his care and charge may be and are occasionally mentioned so in that to Titus Paulâ—s owne Sonne i. e. under the particular character of the beloved person converted by him in the conclusion we finde these words Grace be with you all i. e. not with him as he must signifie a whole Presbyterie but all the sincere lovers of Christ and Saint Paul they that love us in the faith in the former part of the verse 9.
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-single-Bishop of the city-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
the Region adjacent and pertaining to that City and so as Church and Congregation are all one as in ordinary use in all languages they are they were Congregationall and Diocesan also 12. What followes of the paucity of believers in the greatest Cities and their meeting in one place as also of a Church and City being all one is willingly granted by us and hath not the least appearance of being usefull to their pretentions or hurtfull to ours and therefore I have no temptation to make any the lest Reply to it 13. That which next followes though it concerne us not to examine it our interest being equally secured be it true or false yet I cannot but take some notice of it in passing because it is a little extraordinary 14. Afterwards say they we conceive that believers became so numerous in these great Cities as that they could not conveniently meet in one place Thus it was in the Church of Jerusalem Act. 2. 41. and 4. 4. and 5. 14. and thus possibly it might be in most of these Asian Churches in St. John's time 15. Here certainly the word Afterwards is relative and referrs to the Antecedent in the former Paragraph and that is In the beginning of Christianity Hereupon I demand what time is that which they call the beginning of Christianity Is it that wherein Christ continued on the Earth If so they will easily believe us that we doe not think that Diocesan Bishops were placed in the Church within that period If it be the time immediately following the Resurrection of Christ when the Apostles began to preach and propagate the Faith then how come they to divide that time which is spoken of Act. 2. 41. from that time of the beginning of Christianity by this word Afterward for t is certain what is there storied of the 3000. Converts is the effect of the first Sermon preached by any of the Apostles immediately upon the descent of the Holy Ghost upon them and the gift of Tongues the wonderment whereof brought those so many Auditors together 16. So secondly when they say of this point of time Act. 2. 41. The believers were so numerous that they could not conveniently meâ—t in one place This is contrary to the evidence of the Text which saith expresly v 44. That all the believers were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which in the last paragraph they interpreted meeting in â—ne and the same place The like might be said of the other places Act 4. â—4 and 5 14. for certainly as yet though the number of Believers increased yet they were not distributed into severall Congregations But this by the way being assured that this disquisition is perfectly extrinsecall to the matter in debate betweene us because as at Jerusalem the antients are cleare in affirming that soone after Christ's Ascension Peter and James and John chose James the just the Brother of the Lord and constituted him Bishop or Jerusalem which is all that we need pretend to from the story of that Church so it matters not much at what point of time that was done whether at the very beginning or afterwards much lesse how soone it was that that Church was distributed into severall divided Assemblies the Creation of the Bishop not at all depending on that as hath formerly been shewed 17. Hence will it appeare to how very little purpose are those cautions added and observations made in the remaining part of this sixt Chapter 18. Thus say they possibly it might be i.e. the believers be so numerous in great Cities that they could not conveniently meet in one place in most of these Asian Churches in St. John's time But yet notwithstanding all this there are three things diligently to be observed First that these meeting places were frequented promiscuously and indistinctly and that believers were not divided into set and fixed Churches or Congregations in the Apostles dayes 19. But first I demand Is there any truth in this observation was not the Church of Jerusalem in the Apostles dayes a set and fixed Church so as to be perfectly severed from the Church of Alexandria and Ephesus Was not James the Brother of the Lord Bishop of the one and not of the other 20. Secondly why was this for the Presbyterians interest to be so diligently observed If one of these Churches were not thus divided and severed from others how could it be governed by a Presbytery as they pretend it was Must it not be a determinate fixed body that is governed by any whether Bishop or Presbyters I professe not to be able to discerne by my most diligent observation why this was so necessary to be so diligently observed 21. Secondly say they it must be as diligently observed that notwithstanding these different meeting places yet the Believers of one City made but one Church in the Apostles dayes as is evident in the Church of Jerusalem which is called a Church not Churches Act. 8. 1. 15. 6. 22. 16. And so likewise it is called the Church of Ephesus and the Church of Thyatira c. not Churches c. 22. This Observation I acknowledge to have perfect truth in it and not to be confutable in any part save onely that the two latter Texts are certainly misquoted and not rectified in the Errata and therefore instead of rejecting I shall imbrace it and from thence conclude that there is no manner of incongruity in assigning of one Bishop to one Church and so one Bishop in the Church of Jerusalem because it is a Church not Churches being forced to acknowledge that where there were more Churches there were more Bishops and so likewise one Angel of Ephesus and of Thyatira c. This I suppose was not the thing they meant to inferre from hence nor indeed doe I conceive it necessarily inferred from onely very agreeable to the onenesse of each Church without other arguments to joyne with it But I am still to seek and emand what advantage accrues to their cause or disadvantage to ours by this observation 23. But then thirdly they adde that this Church in the City was governed in the Apostles dayes by the common councell of Presbyters or Bishops 24. This indeed were worth their diligent observing if it could be descried and would abundantly recompence them for the no-profit their two former observations brought them in if it could be obtained by all their diligence But this being the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the onely thing in question betwixt us whether the Church in each City was in the Apostles dayes governed by the common councell of Presbyters or Bishops or by one single Bishop called sometimes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elder as that signifies simply a Governour not with restriction a member of a College of Governours this I say being the onely question in debate betweene us it must not be any farther yeilded to them than their proofes and evidences will enforce it And these of what virtue they are must now appeare
by the view of them And the first they produce is this 25. The Apostles went about ordeining Presbyters in every Church Act. 14. 23. 26. But surely this is an infirme argument Every Church signifies without question more Churches than one viz. Derbe Lystra Iconium Antioch v. 20. 21. And if in each of those one 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be supposed to be ordeined that certainly will satisfie the importunity of that Text and the mention of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elders in the plurall viz. foure Elders in those so many Churches And if because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is in the singular number they therefore thinke that those plurall Elders must be ordeined in each of those Churches This is too grosse a mistake for Scholers to be guilty of it being certaine that that is not the importance of the phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 any more than of the English Church by Church or in every Church i.e. more Elders in more Churches one in every one 27. Their next proofe is from Act. 20. 17. Paul called for the Elders of the Church of Ephesus one of these seven Churches and calls them Bishops and commits the whole government of the Church to them The like may be said of the other six Churches 28. What may be said of Ephesus I grant may be said of the other six Churches but the Text no where affirmes it of Ephesus and so the analogy will no way prove it of the rest All that the Text saith is this And from Miletus he sent to Ephesus and called the Elders of the Church This is not to say the Elders as that signifies Presbyters in our moderne notion of the one City and so Church of Ephesus but the Elders i.e. Bishops either of the Asian Church of that whole Region or at least of the Ephesine Province the neighbouring Bishops of the Churches or Cities that were under that Metropolis of Ephesus who by St. Paul's sending his summons to Ephesus the chiefe City of the one and chiefe Metropolis of the other which consequently had daily meanes of communicating intelligence to those other Cities might thus most commodiously be advertised of St. Paul's comming and provide to meet him at Miletus 29. That this is no strain'd interpretation or answer is elsewhere evidenced and may summarily appeare by these two testimonies one of Irenaeus here formerly mentioned l. 3. c. 14. ab Epheso reliquis proximis civitatibus convocatos esse that they were called from Ephesus and the rest of the neerest Cities adjoyning to it This is an expresse evidence which being allowed puts the whole matter out of question And although in a matter of fact a testimony of so credible a person that lived so neere the times being an auditour of Polycarpe the first Bishop of Smyrna and is not contradicted by any contemporary is of a competent authority and need not any other Topickes to assist it yet for the removing all possible prejudices from it and rendring it yet more indubitable I shall a little farther enlarge for the confirming of it 30. And 1. the Apostle at his meeting with them v. 18. begins in this style yee know from the first day that I came into Asia after what manner I have been with you at all seasons An addresse to them either as to the Elders of Asia indefinitely as many as could conveniently come to Miletus at that time or at least as to more than to the Elder or Elders if that could be truly pretended of one City of Asia peculiarly or exclusively to all others 31. So againe v. 25. And now behold I know that yee all among whom I have gone preaching the Kingdome of God shall see my face no more This evidently addresses the speech not onely to the inhabitants of one City but to all those as many as were then present among whom hee had gone preaching the Faith of Christ and that we know was done by him to the other Cities and not onely to that of Ephesus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in passage though not so solemnly as at Ephesus going through all the Region and preaching the Gospell to all saith Oecumenius on 2 Joh. And so t is expresly said Act. 19. 21. that after the two yeares and three moneths spent at Ephesus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he staid and spent some time in Asia And accordingly v. 26. Demetrius truely saith that not onely at Ephesus but almost throughout all Asia Paul had perswaded and turned away the people 32. Secondly then the Faith being before this time successefully propagated through all Asia and not onely in this one City of Ephesus there were without question Churches accordingly gathered and compacted in many other Cities as well as in Ephesus before this time of Paul's parting never to see them againe And not onely in the other Metropolis six more of which are owned by the Objectors Smyrna and the rest Rev. 1. but also in the lesser Cities which were not Metropoliticall and yet more especially in those Cities which were neerest Ephesus and which as belonging to that Metropolis had frequent resort thither to the Assises which were there kept Act. 19. 38. and so must be supposed to have received speciall influences from the Apostle's residing there for the space of two yeares and three moneths Act. 19. 8. 10. 33. To which purpose it must againe be remembred that as Timâ—thy is by Eusebius styled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bishop of the Province that belongs to Ephesus l. 3. c. 4. which is all one as to make that a Metropolis over other Cities and accordingly in the order of Metropoliticall Sees at the end of Codinus the Bishop of Ephesus is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Primate of all Asia so Ignatius in Traâ—an's time is by joynt consent of the antients affirmed to have written Epistles to two Churches Magnesia and Trallis which are known to be Cities under this Metropolis of Ephesus and to have named the Bishops of each Damas of the one and â—olybius of the other 34. And as there is no question among any but that Ignatius wrote such Epistles to those Churches Salmasius cites that to the Trallians expresly as the Epistle of Ignatius which certainly he would never have done if he had doubted whether ever Ignatius wrote to them and indeed all that is questioned by him and D. Blondell is but this whether the Epistles now extant under his name be genuine or no not whether Ignatius as all writers accord wrote seven Epistles of which these which we now speake of are two so there is no ground of imagining that they were of a later plantation than that which is here recorded to be wrought by St. Paul Act. 19. All Asia having then heard the Faith v. 10. and received it in a remarkable manner v. 20. and a great dore saith St. Paul being opened to him at Ephesus peculiarly which must needs have influence on the Cities next adjoyning to it in
a speciall manner 35. To this I shall adde thirdly that as Aristides saith of Ephesus that it was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the common magazine or store-house of Asia 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 their refuge for all wants so it must needs be the fittest way of conveying intelligence speedily to all the Cities of Asia especially the proximae civitates as Irenaeus said the Cities next adjoyning and so most commodious to assemble those other Bishops to Paul at Miletus and not only him or those that are supposed to have resided at Ephesus 36. And accordingly we finde in Eusebius that the Epistle of Antonius â—ius concerning the Christians which was to be communicated to all Asia 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was proclaimed or divulged at Ephesus in the common meeting of Asia as the readiest way to make it universally knowne 37. All which being premised and withall that there is no reason to imagine that St. Paul at the time of his fimall parting taking his solemne last leave of them v. 38. should not so much consider as to call for or desire to see any of the rest of his Sonnes the Governours of the Inferiour Churches to whom he had committed that numerous flock which was now so universally in such danger of Wolves save onely those of the one Church of that one City of Ephesus supposing there had been more than one there This will be a very competent confirmation of Irenaeus his testimony that indeed thus it was as he hath delivered that the Bishops of the Cities neerest adjoyning to Ephesus as many as by summons from thence could speedily be called together in all reason the Bishops of the Cities which were under that Metropolis were sent to meet the Apostle at Miletus and accordingly met him there 38. The second testimony is that maxime of the Greeke Scholiast on 1 Pet. 1. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Booke of the Acts calls the Bishops Elders which being avow'd by me in the Dissertations and cleared through all the places in the Acts they ought by all Lawes of disputing either to have endeavoured the refuting of what is there said or the proving that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elders must needs there signifie Presbyters in the moderne notion which having not here attempted to doe there is no kinde of force in what is here dictated nothing said but what had beene long since largely and clearely answered 39. Yet because in the next Chapter where this place of the Acts is viewed againe one argument I see produced in favour of their pretensions which they found in an observation of mine I shall thinke my selfe concern'd to give an account of it 40. It is this Pag. 85. If the Apostle by the Elders of the Church had meant the Bishops of the Church of all Asia he would have said not the Elders of the Church but of the Churches It is an observation made use of by one of those that makes use of this answer we are now confuting That when the Scripture speakes of Churches in Cities it alwayes useth the singular number as the Church of Jerusalem the Church of Corinth c. but when it speakes of provinces where there are many Cities then it uses the plurall number as the Churches of Judaea and the Churches of Asia Rev. 1. 11. According to this observation if the Apostle had meant of the Bishops of all Asia he would have said the Elders of the Churches whereas he calls them Elders of the Church v. 17. and so must meane the Elders of the Church of Ephesus and so meere Presbyters not Bishops 41. But herein is a manifest mistake For the observation is not made as is here suggested of Churches in Cities and Provinces that the former of them are constantly to be understood where there is mention of a Church in the singular number without any name of particular City added to it and that when a Province is mention'd 't is alwayes done by Churches in the plurall number This is the sense on which their argument is founded But if the Reader consult the Dissertations p. 190. He shall finde there is no such thing 't is onely this That in the New Testament there is mention made of Churches in the plurall number the Churches of Judaea of Samaria of Galilee of Syria of Cilicia of Galatia of Asia of Macedonia whereas in other places there was as frequent mention of a Church in the singular the Church in Jerusalem in Antioch in Cenchrea in Corinth of the Thessalonians of Ephesus of Smyrna of Pergamus of Thyatira of Sardis of LaodicaeaÌ„ 42. The cause of that difference is there said to be this that Judaea c was the name of a Province in which there being many Cities there were consequently many Churches and Bishops in them whereas one City with the territory adjoyning to it being ruled by one single Bishop was to be called a singular Church and therefore that which is said to be done in every Church Acts 14. 13. is said to be done in every City Tit. 1. 5. The sum of which observation is onely this that one City with the territory adjoyning to it never makes above one Church in the Scripture style whereas a Province or Country or Nation consists of many Cities and so of many Episcopall Sees or Churches 43. This was all that was said in that place or that was usefull to be said in order to the end to shew the Originall of Metropolitanes there And what a wresting of a plaine obvious observation is it to conclude it from hence to be my assertion that when that must be whensoever or else the conclusion cannot be deducible from it the Scripture speakes of a Province it is in the plurall number It doth sometimes do so and that was all that was usefull to me If it had done so but once though twenty times it had done the contrary it had been sufficient for some reasonable account there must be for the doing it once and what could that be but the number of the Cities and so of Churches in each Province or Nation much more when there were so many examples of it 44. But this is not to affirme that it alwayes doth so especially when being left at large without any restraint not the Church of Ephesus or the like but indofiniâ—ely the Church it is very capable of another interpretation For sure when I wrote that I had not forgotten my Creede or in it the name Church in the singular number which by the adjunct of Catholike must needs be more than the Church of one City And having read Mat. 16. where the whole Church of Christ is called my Church in the singular a like phrase to that of the Church of God which the Bishops here are commanded to feed and in the one Epistle to the Ephesiaâ—s having six examples of the word Church in the singular each signifying evidently the universall Church I might very well be allowed
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
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
made use of but after another manner according to the Cities in which they kept their Courts or Assises as before was said of the Cities of Asia Accordingly when S. Paul first comes to Philippi St. Luke mentions it under the title of the prime City of the Province of Macedonia and is not that more to be heeded speaking so expresly of that City at that time then that Geographers description which no way discovers to what time it belongs and cannot belong to this time of the planting the faith at Philippi if S. Luke may be believed Secondly the same St. Luke saith of it at that time that it was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a colony of i.e. a City replenished by the Inhabitation of the Romanes And of those Colonies in chiefe Cities there is no question but they were especially chosen to be places of their Assises whither the Neighbouring Cities resorted for Justice and so were Metropoles in the civill accounts Thirdly of this City of Philippi 't is as evident that it was the first converted of all Macedonia and that from thence he went after to Thessalonica And so the right of Primogeniture which ordinarily gave claime to the Metropoliticall dignity in the Ecclesiasticall account as in the case of Antioch and Jerusalem appeares belonging to Philippi over and above the forementioned praecedence thereof in civill account there is no reason to doubt but this was a Metropoliticall Church an Elder Sister to Thessalonica and each a Mother to the Churches of lesser Cities of Macedonia that belonged to them According to which it is that Polycarpe in his Epistle mentions St. Pauls Epistles in the plurall written to these Philippians which learned men interpret of the Epistles to the Thessalonians and it cannot commodiously be understood any other way Sect. VIII A third Confession of Timothies being an Archbishop Of the qualifications 1 Tim. 3 2. belonging to Bishops Of the Bishops being worthy of double honour though he never preach Of the word and Doctrine Of the Presbytery 1 Tim. 4. Of Rebuking and receiving accusation against an Elder THe third Confession is that Timothy was Archbishop of Ephesus that when Paul sets downe the qualifications of Bishops though he mention none but such as are common to a Presbyter with a Bishop yet he is to be understood to speake of Bishops in a Praelaticall sense and not at all of Presbyters And when he saith the Elders that Rule well are worthy of double honour this is saith this Author the Bishops that Rule well thereby holding out this great errour that a Bishop that Ruleth well is worthy of double honour though he never preacheth And when St. Paul bids Timothy not neglect the gift that was given him by the laying on the hands of the Presbytery that is saith he of Episcopacy And when the Apostle chargeth him not to rebuke an Elder and not to receive an accusation against an Elder this is to be understood of Bishops saith he and not of meere Presbyters To this accumulative crime affirmed to be confest by me in so many particulars I answer by avowing my Confession thus farre 1. that I take Timothy to have been Bishop of Ephesus and conclude it from 1 Tim. 1. 3. then that Ephesus was a prime Metropolis of Asia from the testimonies of Pliny and Vlpian and generally the Church-writers And from those two put together I hope I may gaine liberty to confesse that Timothy was Archbishop of Ephesus Secondly That Paul 1 Tim. 3. 1 2. speaking of Episcopacy as of a good worke or office and the qualifications required in the person to be promoted to it speakes of a Bishop in the Praelaticall sense so I am sure Chrysostome doth understand him and the testimony was lately cited out of him and Theodoret that understands it otherwise yet applies it first to Bishops and saith on that occasion that their degree in the Church is superior to that of Presbyters And if no higher qualifications be required of a Bishop than are fit to be required of a Presbyter which yet I no where say and the argument taken from the no-other qualifications here specified than onely for the Bishop and the Deacon are of no force to induce it both because it is a negative argument and there is another reason for the omitting Presbyters because in this infancie of the Church there was not any such need of them the Bishop with his Deacon one or more were sufficient in every City and besides the qualifications assigned the Deacon may be common to him with the Presbyter as well as those assign'd the Bishop yet that is no prejudice to the superiority of the office or to my interpreting that Text of the Bishop For sure I may as conveniently say that the Bishop is named without the Presbyter at a time when there were Bishops but as yet no Presbyters in the Church and that when there were Presbyters instituted their qualifications were to be regulated by the rules given of Bishops as it can be imagined to be fitly said by them that the place is meant of Presbyters when the Apostle names Bishops expresly and when by many other evidences we know that then there were Bishops but by no footsteps can discerne that then there were Presbyters upon no other reason but that the qualifications are common to Presbyters Thirdly For the mention of the Elders that rule well 1 Tim. 5. 17. I doubt not but it may very commedicuoly be interpreted of the Bishops through all his Province for as there the style is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 praeside or rule so 't is certaine that in the use of the Church this was the title of the Bishops as hath formerly been shewed out of Justin Martyr and others and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 double honor 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the priviledge of Primogeniture being assigned as his portion is an evidence thereof And the inconvenience that is here urged against that interpretation is perfectly of no force For 1. if from hence it might be concluded that a Bishop is worthy of double honour though he never preacheth then from their interpreting it of the Presbyter it will as much follow to be their oâ—inion that the Presbyter is worthy of double honour though he never preach But then secondly the truth is that neither of these conclusions follow either the one or the other interpration for the first phrase of labouring in the word and the other of labouring in the doctrine which by these are confounded and so exprest undistinctly by preaching denote two severall things the former the planting of the faith where it is not yet received which is constantly exprest by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 preaching the Gospell and the word the latter signifies taking paines in a Church already gathered for the confirming and farther instructing of believers And then as he that doth one of these may yet possibly not doe both occasion not
last charge is more severe than any of the former that these paradoxes as they stile them are contrary to the very letter of the Scripture as we have made it evident in our arguments against the Jus Divinum of Episcopacy and would farther manifest it if we thought it necessary This I confesse of contrariety to the very letter of the Scripture rightly understood I lookt upon as so high a charge that I verily expected somewhat extraordinary to binde it on me and I suddenly resolved as I read the first words of that Section to examine those Scriptures that should now be produced ponderingly and exactly and either confesse my owne conviction or give competent reasons why I was not convinced by them But I soon found my expectations frustrated for as here is no one such Scripture mentioned so for their arguments against the Jus Divinum of Episcopacy I know not where to seek them and never heard and verily believe there is no such thing that they had formerly written any such Book against Bishops wherein the Dissertations or any assertions of mine therein were so much as arraign'd by them much lesse evidenced to be contrary to the very letter of Scripture If I had I assure them I should then have been as ready to have made my reply as now I have been to attend them thus farre And for their evidencing this in any tract publisht by them before the Dissertations were written by which notwithstanding the Dissertations were to be concluded I have no reason to thinke that to be their meaning because these assertions of mine are by them affirmed to be Paradoxes contrary to all that have ever written in defence of Episcopacy and therefore could not unlesse it were by divination be taken notice of and prevented by them After they had exprest their opinion that it was not necessary for them farther to manifest the contrariety of my Paradoxes to the very letter of the Scripture they yet farther proceed in these words For when the Apostle saith James 5. 14. Is any man sick among you let him call for the Elders of the Church who is there that can be perswaded to believe that all these Elders were Bâ—shops in the sense that Bishops are taken in in our dayes Is this the pâ—oper Worke of Bishops to visit the sick And besides if the Apostle by Elders had meant Bishops in that sense he would have said let him call for the Elders of the Churches not of the Church unlesse our brethren will say that there were divers Bishops in every Church in the Apostles dayes in which there were many sick persons What the For in the front here signifies I shall not goe about to conjecture The antecedents would incline me to believe that it pretends to introduce a reason which might make it evident that my assertions are contrary to the very letter of Scripture But that sure it doth not any way attempt or appeare to doe unlesse the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elders of the Church be supposed here to signifie Presbyters in our moderne notion of the word But then that is so farre from being granted that it is knowne to be the onely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the matter of question betwixt us all this while and so was to be proved not supposed or presumed in this matter But bating them this begging of the Question I shall proceed to satisfie their wonderment that I should goe about to perswade any that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elders in this place of Saint James were Bishops in that sense that we now understand and use the word And 1. I shall not doubt to avow that for all that space that in any Church there were no other officers ordained but onely the Bishop and Deacon it must of necessity be resolved the proper worke of Bishops to visit the sicke That there was at the first when the Faith was but thin planted such a time hath already been evidenced out of Clemens Romanus and the profoundest antequities that Epiphanius could meet with And that then this office must either be neglected or performed by either Bishop or Deacon will not need any farther proofe As for the the Deacons in their institution we finde not that to be any part of their office and indeed the suitablenesse of absolution to that state of dangerous sicknesse and the mention of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his having committed sins and the command of giving it in case he be qualified for it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 absolvetur ei absolution shall be given him doth render the Deacon incompetent for that worke and so where there are no Presbyters must needs divolve it on the Bishop And this account hath more than probability no lesse than perfect evidence in it if we onely suppose what hath been so oft cleared from the Antients to be matter of fact that where the number of believers was small and none qualified for the office of Presbyters there the Apostles constituted no more but a Bishop and a Deacon in each City For whilst this was the state of that City I shall suppose a man sick and by the force of S. James's exhortation desirous of absolution c. Who is there supposeable in that City to give it him but the Bishop And whom else can he call to him for this purpose And then who can doubt but this is the worke in it selfe very agreeable and in this supposed case peculiar and proper to the Bishop so that unlesse this supposition be false nay impossible to be true I may safely say this was or might be the Bishops worke to visit the sick c. And indeed if it were not how could it be by the Bishop when other parts of his office became his fuller employment committed to the Presbyter For 1. he could not commit this to others if he first had it not in himselfe and Secondly this was the onely reason of ordaining inferiour officers in the Church that part of the Bishop's taske might be performed by them as when the whole burthen which was too heavy for Moses was distributed among other men which in this particular could not be if before this assignation of assistents it were not originally the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 worke or proper taske of the Bishop To this may be farther added the reall dignity because necessary charity of this performance of visiting the sick c. and this arising both from the intimation of Gods owne finger pointing out this a most agreeable season for all spirituall admonition and comfort a molle tempus fandi wherein a word seasonably spoken may most probably find the due reception and wherein the prayers and blessing of the most Apostolical person or the most highly and justly dignified in the Church in the favour of God may come in most opportunely in this respect we see in that place that the prayers of the great Prophet Elias are made use of by S. James to exemplifie
the practice which in this particular he recommended to the Church And I must needs tell the Objectors that as meane an opinion as they seem to have of this work of visiting the sick I cannot but affirme on the contrary that if it were duely and advantagiously managed it were extreamely usefull and beneficiall to the good of Soules and as proper for a Bishop personally to performe when his other publick necessarie taskes wherein many more are concern'd and wherein he hath no proxies to supply his place permit as any one part of his divine office differing from the rest only in this and in that respect yeilding the precedence to them that other parts of his office are or may be at the same time extensive to many whilst each act of this is terminated in some one whose soul yet ought to be more pretious in his eyes than all other acquisitions in the world Accordingly it is in the Dissertations evidenced out of Polycarp's Epistle who was somewhat after the time of James the author of this Epistle that part of the Bishop's office it was then esteemed to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to visit all the sick in like manner as in Justin Martyr he is made the Curator of all that are in want the grand distributer of all the liberalities of the Church As for the onely objection that is here tendered against this interpretation of the place from the singalar 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Church not of the Churches the answer is obvious that this Epistle of James being written to all the Jewes in dispersion Jam. 1. 1. these could not make up any one particular Church of any single denomination but yet all conjoyne very fitly in that one Vniversal style of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Church In this respect we know 't is called the Catholick Epistle of James because written to the whole Church of the Jewes all the believers of that nation wheresoever disperst out of their Countrey Now these inhabiting in divers Cities it is as certaine there were divers Bishops in this circuit and so the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Elders of the Church are most commodiously set to expresse these severall Bishops belonging to this complexe body the Church of the dispersion Not that there were more of these in one City for that consideration would never have caused the plural expression because were there never so many the sick person needed not have called more at once and upon that score 〈◊〉 shall demand of them that argue from the number was every sick man in their opinion to call for the whole Presbytery â—or againe because there were not as many Churches as Elders but onely because these many particular Churches of which there was an equal number of Elders were very fitly comprehended under the one general 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Church in the singular number Sect. XI A last objection from Act. 21. 18. and 14. 3. and 11. 30. answered Elders for Rulers or Bishops THere yet remaines one sort of Objections more against these Paradoxes in these words Besides when it to said Act 21. 18. Paul went in with us unto James and all the Elders were present It is supposed by our Episcopall men that James was at this time Bishop of Jerusalem Now we demand who were these Elders were these also Bishops of Jerusalem will this answer consist with our brethrens judgement so likewise when it is said Act. 15 4. And when they were comâ— to Jerusalem they were received of the Church and of the Apostles and Elders we demand what is meant by the Church Is it not meant the Church of Jerusalem to which place they are said to come And if so then we askâ— farther what is meanâ— by the Elders Must it not be answered that by Elders are meant the Elders of Jerusalem And then let any man 〈◊〉 us how these Elders can be said to be Bishops in a Prelatical sense especially according to the sense of our brethren who make James to be at this time the onely Bishop of Jerusalem Adde farther It is said Act. 14. 3. Whâ—n Paul and Barnabas had ordained them Elders in every Church Act. 11. 30. They sent reliefe to the Elders c. Can any imagine that this reliefe was sent onely to Bishops and that Paul and Barnabas ordeined no Presbyters in any Church but only Bishops Is not this to offer manifest violence to the Scriptures and instead of upholding of Episcopacie is not this sufficient to render it odious and contemptible to all sober and godly and moderate Christians But we forbeare It seems we have still remaining another heape of inconvenient Confessions that we labour under And upon them more socratico they make their demands And although I might justly wonder why they which have reade the Dissertations and know what answer I give to every of their demands should be at the trouble to aske them againe yet because I am resolved not to be weary of attending them I shall answer them as punctually as they could wish and patiently support all the odium that will result from thence among all sober and godly and moderate Christians Here onely I desire two things may be remembred which have already been evidenced 1. that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elderâ— in the style of the Old Testament in the continued use of all languages being an expression of power and dignity is in the New Testament upon all reasonable accounts as properly applicable to the Rulers and Governours Ecclesiastical as the word Apostles or Bishops or Presidents or Rulers or any the like would be thought to be and withall very fit to expresse single Rulers in each particular Church in case any such may otherwise appeare to be mentioned in Scripture there being no propriety in the word or peculiarity in the usage of it to incline it to joynt power of Collegues ruling in common Accordingly evidences have been produced in the Dissertations to shew the continuance of this usage among Authors after the Scripture-time that it long remained in the language of the Antients Policarpe Papias Irenaeus Clemens Alexandrinus and Tertullian many of which are knowne and by the adversaries acknowledged to assert Episcopacy in our moderne sense and yet use the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elders to denote sometimes the Apostles sometimes the singular Bishops in each Church And therefore the affirming this one thing so attested and confirmed viz. that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may very conveniently be interpreted Bishops as oft as the circumstances of the Text will beare it will not I hope still be so unfoâ—tuâ—ate as to fall under the censure of Paradoxe and odious being indeed a plaine obvious observation which hath nothing of difficulty or harshnesse in it Having praemised this I shall onely adde that the Apostles being by all Praelatists I hope convincingly affirmed and proved to have ordeined Bishops in every City of Converts and
proselites to the Faith and there being many such Cities in Judaea besides Jerusalem and consequently many Bishops in those Cities one in each it can be no new thing to conclude that when we read of Bishops in the plural within that pale of Iudaea these are the Bishops of Iudaea and so in like manner when we finde the Bishop of Ierusalem mentioned separately and then those others with him exprest by any title which signifies Bishops be it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it matters not and with all these never exprest to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elders of the Church of Ierusalem but either Elders simply or else 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in or at Ierusalem denoting onely the place where at that time they were present it will be as little harsh to inferre that at such time there were assembled or met together at Ierusalem Iames the Bishop of that Metropolis and the other Bishops of the whole region the Bishops of Iudaea with him From hence there will now be no difficulty to make a briefe answer to each of their demands 1. that Act. 21. 18. the Elders which were present with Iames the Bishop of Ierusalem were the Bishops of Iudaea which were then upon the emergent affaires of the Church present at Ierusalem whether all of them assembled in Councel to receive an account of Saint Pauls transactions and successes among the Gentiles v. 19. or many of them on any other Ecclisiasticall concernment But that which puts it out of question that it was all of them in Councell is what followes v. 25. where they referre to the decrees which had been conciliarly delivered v. 15. by them who are now there present we have written and concluded And what Paradox can there be in this that all the Bishops of Judaea should be in Councell at Hierusalem and St Peter and St. Iohn with them and that St. Paul should come and give an account of his travailes and actions in their presence The same answer certainly belongs to the place next mentioned c. 15. 4. where after mention of their Reception by the Church followes and of the Apostles and Elders by the Church is meant the Believers that were at Jerusalem whether inhabiting there continually or now occasionally present there By the Apostles James the Brother of the Lord the then Bishâ—p of the Metroâ—olis together with Peter and John the known Apostles of Christ this James by them set over that Church saith Clemens and Hegesippus and by S. Paul himself reckoned among the Apostles Gal. 1. 19. and so in the title of his Epistle and named before Peter and John the two prime Apostles as being in this his See Gal. 2. 9. and exprest to pronounce the decree in the Councell 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I judge Act. 15. 19. and this confirm'd by the testimonies of those Antients that the Presbyterians make the most frequent use of Theodoret and St. Hierome the former expresly affirming of those times that they which were after styled Bishops were then called Apostles and the latter styling this James particularly Apostolum decimum tertium the thirteenth Apostle And then what can be more agreeable to the Context to make the Councell complete a Councell for the Churches of Syria c to appeale to then to render the Elders the Bishops of all Judaea which were certainly fitter for the turne to joyne in the Councell and give Law to other Cities then the bare Presbyters of the one City of Jerusalem could have been esteemed if any such there had been in the Church so early For though of the Apostles who had an universall jurisdiction and of the Bishop of Jerusalem as that was the prime Metropolis not only of Judaea but Syria also with the Bishops of the whole Province in Councell with him some reasonable account may be given why they should be consulted by the Church of Antioch and give binding decrees in that matter to all that were subject to that Metropolis yet supposing the Church of Jerusalem to be governed by Presbyters and that as these say the Elders mentioned in the Councell were none but the Presbyters of that particular Church there could no reasonable account be given why they should joyn with the Apostles in this worke wherein not Jerusalem of which alone they were Presbyters but Antioch and other Cities of Syria and Cilicia were immediately concerned and concluded by the sentence of James that must be according to their opinion of one of the Presbyters of Jerusalem In the next place what is said of Act. 14. 23. and Act. 11. 30. is somewhat unhappily put together and yet not rectified in the Errata For 1. the ordeining Elders in every Church to which Act. 11. 30. is affixt is not mentioned there but Act. 14. 23. and the sending reliefe which in the Syntaxes must be affixt to Act. 14. 23. is not to be met with there but â—â—ct 11. 30. But this were imputable to some haste either of Scribe or Compositor were there not a second incongruity interweaved in it viz. that when Paul and Barnabas had ordeined them Elders c. which was not done till Act. 14. 23. They sent reliefe to the Elders which was done Act. 11. 30. which is an evident 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which I cannot discerne how it was usefull for them to be guilty of As for their Quaeres raised on these two Texts the Answers are obvious and here to be translated out of the Dissertations as formerly that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elders Act 11. 30. are the Bishops of the severall Cities of Judaea not the Preâ—byters of that one City Jerusalem For 1 the famine that occasioned this charity of the Antiochians was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not upon Jerusalem alone but all the World i.e. in the Scripture-stile Lu. 21. 26. Rom. 10. 18. over the whole Land of Judea according to the manner of the septuagint who oft render 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the earth or the Land when it signifies the Land of Judaea by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the World As Isa 10. 23. and 13. 5. 9. and 24. 1. and accordingly Josephus saith of this time of Claudius's Reigne 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that there was a great famine over Judaea Secondly the charity is distinctly said to be designed by the Donors 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the brethren that dwelt in Judaea in no wise confined to Jerusalem nor consequently can the Elders to whom it was sent and in whose hands it was put be any others than the Elders i.e. say we Bishops of all Judaea Thirdly it is very agreeable to the office of Bishops as we find the practice in the Primitive Church to be the receivers and stewards and dispensers of the wealth of any sect which was brought in to the Church whether by the offertory of the faithfull in the Sacrament or by the liberality of other Churches
inlarged to those that were in want It being Justin Martyr's affirmation of the first times that all the offerings were brought to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or President and that he was thereby made 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Curator of all that were in want And when what is sent to the Bishop is supposed to be sent to him as the Oeconomus or steward of the Church not for the inriching himself but to provide for those that wanted I cannot imagine why this may not be as conveniently supposed as that it should be sent to the Preâ—byters onely So in like manner the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Act. 14. 23. are Bishops againe and such and only such as farre as we have any footsteps of it were at that time ordained in the Churches one in every City where the Gospell was received with one or more Deacons to attend him And to this as the words so often mentioned out of Clemens Romanus are most evident that the Apostles of Christ preaching through Cities and Regions constituted their first fruits 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for Bishops and Deacons so the context in this place of the Acts is very agreeable For here when Paul and Barnabas had preacht and converted a competent number at Derbe v. 12. and returned to the Cities of Lystra Iconium and Antioch v. 22. coâ—firming the soules of the brethren i.e. the faithfull there it followes before their parting that they ordained Elders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in every Church that sure is in every of the Churches here named not many in each but Elders in all one Bishop in every Church which again is no news for me or any Praelatist to affirm when in the Epistle to Titus St. Paul's direction is conformable to his practice appointing him to ordaine Elders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 City by City or in every City c. 1. 5. and presently calling the Elder so to be ordained Bishop as in the Epistle to Timothy he is also called Thus much paines I shall not grudge to have taken if it be but to rescue a small booke very innocently meant from the charge of two suâ—h Paradoxes as they are called by those who have not thought fit to believe them and are as unwiling that others should and therefore conclude their discourse against them with tragicall expressions of offering manifest violence to the Scriptures of being sufficient instead of upholding Episcopacy to render it odious and contemptible c. And when they have said so much with so little weight of reason to justifie it they will then part with all meeknesse and perfect temper but we forbeare i.e. abstaine to adde more when they had said as much ill as could be I am sorry there was still any more bitternesse within to be supprest when there was so much vented However it is we are now at end of a second post and to have time to breath a while after some lassitude CHAP. III. Concerning the Opinion of Antiquity in this Question Sect. 1. The Testimonies of Clemens Romanus Bishops and Deacons the onely offices at the first Corinth Metropolis of Achaia What 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifie The Apostles care to prevent contentions about Episcopacy Hegesippus's testimony of the contentions at Corinth Clement a Bishop SOme things there are yet behind in their Appendix wherein I discerne my selfe to be concern'd in some directly and immediately in others by remoter obligation as when some of those testimonies of Antiquity which are in the Dissertations manifested to be perfectly reconcileable with our pretensions and some of them evident confirmations of them are yet by these Writers crudely taken up and made use of as Testimonies on their side without ever taking notice of that which is said in the Dissertations to cleare the contrary Of the former sort wherein I am more immediately pointed at there are foure things First Concerning one testimony of St. Hierome Secondly concerning Ignatius his Epistles in generall and the appeales that I make to hâ—s authoriâ—â— which they will not allow to have force with them Thirdly concerning one testimony cited by them out of St. Ambrose on Ephes 4. and answered by me but that answer disliked and rejected by them Fourthly concerning the Chorepiscopi Of the second sort are the testimonies out of Clemens Romanus Polycarpe Irenaeus and Tertullian especially the two former of them I shall therefore briefly survey every one of these and I suppose I have pitcht on the most convenient Method and that which will give the Reader the clearest view both of the judgement of Antiquity concerning Episcopacy in generall to which their Appendix professeth wholly to be designed and more particularly of the truth of those two propositions which have been accused as Paradoxes in me but will now appeare not to be such by taking these testimonies as they lie in the order of time wherein the Authors lived and then that of St. Hierome which happens to be first mentioned by them p. 102. will fall to be one of the last to which we shall make reply First then for Clemens they thus begin sure we are that Clemens who lived in the first century in his famous Epistle to the Corinthians an undoubted piece of antiquity makes but two Orders of Ministery Bishops and Deacons And having set downe the place which testifies this * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and rendered it thus Christ Iesus sent his Apostles through Countries and Cities in which they preached and constituted the first fruits approving them by the spirit for Bishops and Deacons to those who should afterwards believe From hence they observe p. 105. That Bishops and Deacons were the onely orders of Ministâ—ry in the first Primitive Church And that the Apostles appointed but two Officers that is Bishops and Deacons to bring men to believe because when he had reckon'd up three Orders appointed by God amongst the Jewes High-Priest Priests and Levites coming to recite Orders appointed by the Apostles under the Gospell â—e doth mention onely Bishops and Deacons And here one would think were little for the Presbyterians advantage even no more than one of my Paradoxes would have afforded them which from this very testimony and some other concluded that which was then so strange for them to heare yet now can be confest by them that the Apostles at their first plantations contented themselves with Bishops and Deacons one of each or perhaps more of the latter in every City But when these men thus grant the conclusion from this place which I inferr'd I have yet no reason to boast of their liberality because I suppose it their meaning that by Bishops Clemenâ—â— meant Preâ—byters though this they do not so much as say in twice repeating of their conclusion And yet certainly it needed more than saying proving by some evidence or argument that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bishops in that place signifies any thing else but Bishops All that they offer toward a reason
of many Cities each of which had a Bishop over them as when in the Councel in Trullo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cyprian is said to be Archbishop of the Region of the Africanes Region there signifying the whole Province under that Metropolitane and so Cyprian himselfe makes it his observation Jampridem per omnes provincias singulas urbes instituti sunt Episcopi Antiently through all the Provinces and each of the Cities Bishops were instituted Where the Bishops in the several Provinces as those differ from the Bishops in each City are undoubtedly Archbishops And if that place so very agreeable to this of Clemens may be allowed to give us the meaning of it we see what it will be and how distant from these mens conclusion that the Apostles instituted Bishops in every City and in each Region or Province and in the Metropolis or chiefe City of it a Metropolitane or Archbishop But then 2. if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should signifie as they would have it a company of villages or little townes lying neer together so as to be here used in opposition to the Cities yet could it not be from hence concluded that the Apostles constituted Bishops in those villages The words are they preached through regions and Cities and constituted their first fruits earlyest converts into Bishops and Deacons which will be perfectly true though all the Bishops and Deacons constituted by them had their fixt seats of residence in the Cities For that they constituted Bishops in the Regions is not here affirmed Much more might be said in this matter to shew that the utmost concessions that the adversaries could demand from hence would no way hinder or disadvantage our pretensions but onely give the Chorepiscopi a greater Antiquitie in the Church than either they or we have reason to thinke they had of which whole matter the reader may see a full discourse Dissert 3. c. 8. Sect. 25. c. and of it somewhat we shall anon have occasion to repete from thence The second Testimony of Clemens is set down by them in these words That the Apostles knowing by Jesus Christ that there would a contention arise 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 about the name of Bishop being indued with perfect foreknowledg they appointed the aforesaid that is the aforesaid orders of Bishops and Deacons c. Here they require two things to be noted 1. that by name is not meant the bare name of Bishop but the honour and dignity as it is taken Phil. 2. 9. Ephes 1. 21. Heb. 1. 4. Rev. 11. so that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The controversie among the Corinthians was not about the name but dignity of Episcopacy for it was about the deposition of their godly Presbyters pag. 57. 58. 2. That the onely remedy appointed by the Apostles for the cure of all contentions arising about Episcopacy is by committing the care of the Church to Bishops and Deacons Afterwards the Church found out another way by setting up one Bishop over another But Clemens tells us that the Apostles indued with perfect foreknowledge of things ordained only Bishops and Deacons for a remedy of Schismes To this they adde to supersede farther citations our of this Epistle It would be too long to recite all that is said in this Epistle for the justification of our proposition let the Reader peruse pag. 57. 62. 69. 72. and take notice that those which are called Bishops in one place are called Presbyters in another and that they are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 throughout the whole Epistle What this whole Epistle will yeild toward the proof of their proposition which is That after Christs Ascension the Church of God for a certaine space of time was governed by a Common Councel of Presbyters without Bishops I thinke it reasonable for any that hath not read it to conjecture by these two testimonies which these who assert the proposition and here undertake to prove it have thought fit to cull out of it having withall nothing more to collect for their turne from the rest of the Epistle particularly from the comparing those foure pages 57. 62. 72. but only this that they which are called Bishops in one place are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elders in another Now this last they know is the very thing that I contend as from the Scripture so from this and other antient writings that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bishop and Elder are words of the same importance all the question is whether at the first both imported Bishops or both Presbyters in our moderne notion That there is no one circumstance so much as offered by them to consideration which may incline it their way is evident by their owne words neither of their two notes pretending to it only their conclusion affirming that they are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 words of the same importance The whole matter therefore will still divolve to this one Quaere whether when Clement saith of the Apostles that they constituted none but Bishops and Deacons by Bishops a College of Presbyters in every City be to be understood or rather one Bishop with his Deacon or Deacons in every City For the clearing of this one difficulty for this being evinced all that their two notes affirme is directly on our side against them I shall here intirely set downe the whole place last produced of which they have left out one halfe It is thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Our Apostles knew by our Lord Jesus Christ that must be by revelation from him that there would contention arise upon the name or dignity of Episcopacie i. e. about the authority of Bishops in the Church some opposing it and casting them out of their Offices as here in the Church of the Corinthians and through all Achaia was actually come to passe at this time and occasioned this Epistle to them For which cause therefore the Apostles having received perfect foreknwoledge that there would be such contentions on this occasion did for the preventing of them constitute the forementioned Bishops and Deacons of those which should come in to the Faith in their new plantations and after them so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies in Barnabas's Epistle Sect. 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the people that should be after and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Act. 13. 42. that which should follow the next after gave a Series or Catalogue or manner of succession i. e. set downe a note of them which in each Church should succeed the present Incumbent that when they dyed other approved men might succeede to their office or ministery What can be more manifest than that the dignity which the Apostles conferred on the Bishops in each City and Province which in the former Testimony hath been cleared to belong to single Bishops not to any College of Presbyters was by them foreseen that it would be matter of Contention occasion of Sedition in the Church for the prevention of
have sent to you as you required which are subjoyned to this Epistle by which you may receive great benefit By this passage it is cleare that as Ignatius wrote one Epistle to Polycarpe another to the Church of Smyrna whereof Polycarpe was Bishop both contein'd under the phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sent to us as it is explain'd by Eusebius in these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ignatius wrote to the Church of Smyrna and severally to Polycarpe the Ruler thereof so he wrote divers others also which at that time before Ignatius's death were by the Philippians desired from Polycarpe and by Polycarpe transmitted to them and so cannot with any sense be affirmed to be forged and affixt to his name after his death How these Epistles were from Polycarpe brought down to the hands of Irenaeus who lived in Polycarp's time and saw him an old man and so testifies in his Epistle to Florinus and cites a notable passage out of Ignatius which we now have in his Epistle to the Romans How soone after Irenaeus Origen cites them again calling him Martyr and Bishop of Antioch the second after Peter and setting down the very words which we now have in the Epistle to the Ephesians How after Origen Eusebius sets down the whole story of writing them together with a distinct Catalogue of seven to Ephesus to Magnesia to the Trallians to the Romans to the Philadelphians to the Smyranaeans and to Polycarpe And in like manner Athanasius citing from Ignatius words which we now finde in his Epistle to the Ephesians and Theodoret in many passages out of that to the Ephesians to the Trallians to the Smyrnaeans And at last St. Hierome on whose authority the Presbyterians so much depend according exactly with Eusebius to give these seven Epâ—stles of Ignatius a full authority with all All this I say hath been at large deduced and evidenced in the Dissertations And this one would thinke might have been sufficient to have given Ignatius some place among their Testimonies for the opinion of antiquity in this matter especially when that very Epistle of Polycarpe which for the bare name of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elders used by him they cite and give him his just honour doth give testimony to the Epistles of Ignatius as cleare and as universally and fully confirmed by others as any by which that Epistle of â—olycarpe or Clemens or any other antient writing stands in the Church But all this it seemes is of no weight with them and therefore after the two testimonies of Clemens and one of Polycarpe backt with the like number of three more a saying of Bishop Bilson very unlikely to be to the praejudice of Bishopâ— if it were here seasonable to examine it and the like of Gratian and the third of the Lord Digby They are then at leisure to remember what out of Ignatius is objected against them Had he by any possible colour of any passage in him been capable of doing them any service he might then as his Epistles were written before Polycarps have also been called out and cited before him But all those Epistles being so diametrally contrary to their pretensions as every man knowes they are he is now to be lookt on and answered as temptations are wont to be to be mentioned only that he may be rejected by them Section III. A vindication of Ignatius's Epistles Vossius's edition of them and the Archbishops of 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 THus therefore they proceede p. 107. Against all that hath been said in this proposition it is objected that the blessed St. Ignatius who lived in the first century hath in his Epistles clearely and fully asserted Episcopall Government as it is distinct from Presbyteriall and that therefore there was no space of time wherein the Church of Christ was governed by the common councell of Presbyters without Bishops properly so called I doe not conceive that they have said any thing of any availe for the proving their Proposition and presume that neither from Clement nor Polycarpe it hath appeared that they have gained any thing And therefore against all that they have said there is no need that I should make any Objection But in a farre larger style I think it were no insolence to say that against all that was ever imagined by any to be producible out of Antiquity in behalfe of Presbytery the bare testimonies of this one Apostolicall Martyr Ignatius will be abundantly sufficient being put in the other Scale to weigh them all downe and decide the controversie on the Prelatists side It were here unreasonable at large to recite all these testimonies being already set downe particularly Dissert 2. c. 25. and the notoriety of the fact being such that a speciall Objection against the Epistles is that he every where asserts Episcopacy And therefore the onely way that could be invented for the supporting the Presbyterians interest against such direct Testimonies so every where inculcated and so impossible to be reconciled with their assertions is this which they give us p. 108. in these words In answer to this we must intreat the Reader to take notice that in the Primitive Times there were abundance of spacious and supposititious workes put forth under the Names of the Apostles and blessed Martyrs which were none of theirs c. The like fraud hath been used in Ignatius's workes c. Here first 't is a little strange that the spurious and supposititious workes of the Apostles and Martyrs should be said to be put forth in the Primitive Times unlesse that phrase Primitive be taken in a very great Latitude I had thought that it had been in after times when errors were gotten in and sought patronage and covert from the Primitive Fathers that these spurious brats were borne and affixt to great Names And by this meanes indeed they are generally descryed by their impudent mentioning of some matters of fact which fell out in those latter times and so discovered the imposture But this mistake importeth not much to our present controversy If what is here confidently affirmed The like fraud was used in Ignatius's workes can be any way proved to have truth in it either in respect of the Primitive or after-times I shall not quarrell upon such niceties I shall therefore examine their proofes which follow And first say they it is certaine the Epistle of the blessed Virgin Mary to Ignatius and of Ignatius to the blessed Virgin and two other Epistles of Ignatius to John the Apostle are spurious and counterfeit To this I most willingly yeild that the Epistles under Ignatius's name to the blessed Virgin and St. John may very probably be deemed none of his
me and consider every part of it And 1. For Rivet Vedelius and Cooke in Censura Patrum 't is evident that their exceptions and censures belong to the former Printed Copies of Ignatius that especially which had beene set out by Mastraeus a Papist against whom Vedelius his Edition and Exercitations were chiefly designed But then Vedelius having called this volume to a very strict examination 't is evident that that Copy which he had thus purged cannot be still lyable to his and the like exceptions which before were made against the former Copies As for Salmasius and Blondell their exceptions have as is here confest been already examined and I need say no more of them till those answers be some way attempted to be invalidated which here they are not but instead of it I am called to answer the Archbishop of Armagh his Arguments Lastly therefore for the Archbishop of Armagh It is first somewhat unexpected that what he had said as the ground and occasion of making a new Edition setting out this very antient Copy and by it purging Ignatius who had before been so corrupted in his opinion should now be proposed to me to be answered who use that very Copy which that Archbishop set out and acknowledge it was formerly as corruptly set forth as he conceived it to be Is it not visible that the Archbishop's whole designe in two impressions of those Epistles was to set them out free from all corruptions and mixtures and interpolations which they had before been under And that all his discourses in his Prolegomena were to prove the former editions to have been corrupt and so that theâ—e was great need of seeking out better Copies and that he verily thought he had now found such And then what can be required of me to answer in his writings who am directly of his opinion in all the substantiall parts of the whole matter As for lesser doubts as whether that one to Polycarpe be among the genuine or no though with Eusebius and St. Hierome I believe it is and have given the reasons of my opinion yet I need not controvert this with any because the other six will still serve my turne abundantly and the Testimonies out of the most purged Geneva or Amstelodam-editions of those six will sufficiently vindicate Episcopacy in our present notion of it to be then received and of the Apostles erecting in the Church A few of these Testimonies I shall here set downe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that the Reader may know the unquestionable opinion of Ignatius and how farre I am from necessity of using any corrupted copy of those Epistles First then in his Epistle to the Smyrnaans we have the three Orders set down distinctly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and againe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the like in 3. places to the Ephesians in 3. to the Magnesians in 4. to the Philadelphians in 4. to the Trallians So secondly we have their particular Bishops mentioned as such Polycarpe of Smyrna in the Epistle to the Magnesians Onesimus of Ephesus in his congratulation to the Ephesians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that they had such a Bishop adding Burrhus his Deacon Damas of the Magnesians together with the names of two of their Presbyters Bassus and Apollonius and Sotion the Deacon all in the Epistle to the Magnesians Polybius of the Trallians in the Epistle to them Thirdly we have his affirmation concerning Bishops through the whole World that they are constituted as or by the minde of Christ i. e. sent by him as he by his Father 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Jesus Christ is the mind or by or according to the mind of the Father sent and Commissionated by him to reveale his will to us and so the Bishops constituted through the World are the minde or by the minde of Christ Fourthly he tells us that all in the â—hurch particularly Presbyters must yeild obedience to the Bishop 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all follow the Bishop in the Epistle to the Smyrnaeans 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that being subject to the Bishop yee may be sanctified in all things in Ep. ad Eph. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yee ought to pay all reverence to the Bishop adding 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as he had observed their pious Presbyters to doe though their Bishop were yong in Ep. ad Magnes and againe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be subject to the Bishop so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 give heed to the Bishop in Ep. ad Philad 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be subject and it is necessary to be subject to the Bishop and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Farewell yee that obey the Bishop in Ep. ad Trall Fifthly he oft addes that nothing ought to be done in the Church without licence of the Bishop 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let none without the Bishop doe any of the things that belong to the Church instancing in Baptisme and the other Sacrament in Ep. ad Smyr and so in the Epistles to the Philadelâ—hians and Trallians Sixthly that a convenient reverence and respect is also due to the Presbyters and to the Deacons as is every where taken notice of by him almost in every Epistle And all this and much more we have in the Copies which are now come most uncorrupt unto us And there is no imaginable way to avoid the force of these Testimonies and the authority of that holy Martyr for Episcopacie but the una litura expunging or casting away the whole volume of Epistles For the truth is his whole designe before his departure from the world being this one of divine Charity to fortifie the severall stocks to which he wrote against the poyson of Hereticks the Gnosticks so early creeping in and despising the Governors of the Church as they had done the Apostles themselves and the Doctrine of the Apostles being by him knowne to be deposited with the Bishops in each Church and having particular assurance of the sanctity and founâ— faith of the present Governors of these Churches to which he writes He thinkes fit to make use of this one most compendious course most immediately tending to his end to keep them all in obedience to their Bishops and officers under them and to make the contrary as it was indeed the sure marke of Haereticks whom they were to avoid And so this is it which hath so fill'd all the Epistles except that one to the Romanes with continuall discourse of the Bishops c. And it is evident that in that present conjuncture of affaires nothing could with more reason and â—tnesse have been insisted on Meane while that I may returne to the place from which I have a while diverted It is so certaine and evident of the learned Archbishop of Armagh that he never disputed against the validity and authority of these Epistles thus purged that it cannot be unknowne to them that thus dispute what arguments he hath urged for the
following pages the Reader must againe be told that what they had done most unreasonably before is here practised againe at large severall places brought out of the former corrupt editions of Ignatius of which no one word is to be found in the new editions out of the most antient Copies Greek and Latine from which alone it is evident that we produce all our testimonies for Episcopacy and so have produced very few of those which they are thus pleased to finde fault with The places which they urge are eight I shall not need to set them down but give the leader a much shorter and yet as satisfactory an account of them Two are cited from the Epistle to the Trallians and neither of them are in any part to be found in our Editions Two are cited from the Epistle to the Magnesians and the first is not at all in our Editions nor the second any farther than thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 As Christ being one with his Father did nothing without him either by himselfe or by his Apostles so neither do ye act any thing without the Bishop and the Presbyters nor endeavour that any thing should appeare reasonable to you which is private or of your owne devising A speech in every sillable of it very well becomming that Holy Martyr written by him at a time when the truth being by the Apostles deposited with the Bishops all private devises of their owne were most justly to be suspected The fift is in the Epistle to Polycarpe and is in our Copies thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It becomes the men that marry and the women that are married to consummate their union with the consent of the Bishop And I wonder what age of the Church there hath been from that time to this which hath not been of the same opinion For what is by Bishops committed to Presbyters that is not done 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without the mind of the Bishop as elsewhere in those Epistles appeares of Baptisme and the Lords Supper neither of which saith he are to be meddled with without the consent of the Bishop and many testimonies out of Antiquity are elsewhere produced in perfect conformity therewith And consequently if in the Christian Church marriage hath alwayes been consummated by the Priest or Presbyter then cannot this speech of Ignatius have any blame in it And that thus it hath been through all ages there is little matter of question and no word here produced by the Objectors to the contrary * Tertullian will be a good competent tostimonie for the next Centurie speaking of the felicity of the Christian Marriage quod Ecclesia conciliat confirmat oblatio obsignat benedictio Angeli renuntiant c. Which the Church makes the Sacrament of the Lords Supper confirmes the benediction of the Priest Seales and the Angels pronounce valid And in * another place Penes nos occultae coâ—junctiones i. e. non prius apud Ecclesiam professa juxta moechiam fornicationem judicari periclitantur Marriages that are not done publickly before the Church are in danger with us to goe for adultery and fornication The same is every where to be found in the Decretal Epistles of Euaristus about Ignatius's time which makes it a tradition from the Apostles and their successors of Soter not above 50. yeares after of Callistus neer fifty yeares after him of Silvester an 100 yeares after him of Siricius 70. yeares after Silvester of Hormisdas 130. yeares after Siricius And though some of these be by D. Blondel thought to be of later dates than the titles of them would pretend yet the authority of most of them is unquestioned as to this matter And the antient piece lately publisht by Sirmund concerning the Heresie of the Predestinati written saith he 1200. yeares since speakes of it as a knowne custome and Canon of the Church over all the world For saith that antient author If marriage be unlawfull Emendate ergo Ecclesia regulâ—m damnate qui in toto orbe sunt sacerdotes Nuptiarum initia benedicentes consecrantes in Dei mysteriis sociantes Amend then the rule the of Church and condemne the Priests which are in all the world who blesse the beginnings of Marriage consecrate and joyne the parties together with the Holy Sacrament And the fourth Councel of Carthage before the yeare 400. hath these words Sponsus sponsa cum benedicendi sunt à sacerdote When the Bridegroom and the Bride are to be blest by the Priest Can. 13. And for latter ages the matter is out of Question And so it will be much more reasonable from this passage in Ignatius being found so perfectly concordant with other passages of the times so neer him to resolve the rule of the Church concerning sacerdotal benediction in marriage to be received from the Apostles and their successors than from finding this speech in one of Ignatius's Epistles to cast away the whole volume As for that which is added at the end of this testimony from the Epistle to Polycarpe My soule for theirs that obey the Bishop Presbyters and Deacons there can be no fault in that supposing as hath been said that the Bishops at that time the Presbyters Deacons living regularly and in union with them had the true safe way among them wherein any man might walke confidently all danger being from the Heresies that crept in and brake men off from that unity of the faith The sixth place from the Epistle to the Philadelphians of the Princes and Emperors obeying the Bishop is certainly inserted by forgery in the former for not one word of it or like it is to be found in our editions So likewise for both parts of the seventh place out of the Epistâ—e to the Smyrnaeans they are not to be found in our Editions The last onely is to be met with there but that in a much more moderate straine than the former in words and sense very agreeable to wholsome doctrine and the exigencies of those times wherein there was no visible way to keep out the tares of false teachers but by requiring all to be kept to the managery of the true husbandman And accordingly I have cited this very speech out of Ignatius for the asserting of Prelacie and if there were no such the Epistles might passe well enough with these as with all other men they would have needed no vindication having no adversary The words are these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 All of you follow the Bishop as Christ Jesus did his Father i. e. as elsewhere appears by the like expression with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 added to it be at perfect unity of doctrine c. with the Bishop as Christ was with God the Father and the Presbytery as the Apostles and reverence the Deacons as those that are appointed by God viz. mediately by the Apostles Where it may be observable that the obiectors which find such fault with this speech of Ignatius in
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
and nothing yet replied to my answers and therefore must not for ever turne the same stone begin the same task againe But for the conceit which is here cited from Salmasius which I confesse I considered not so much before as to make any reply to it viz. That these Epistles were written when Episcopacy properly so called came into the â—hurch and that proved from hence because in all his Epistles he speakes highly in honour of Presbytery as well as of Episcopacy that so the people that had been accustomed to the Presbyterian Government might the more willingly and easily receive this now Government by Episcopacy and not be offended at the novelty of it It is evident how easily this may be retorted and the argument as firmely formed to conclude that Presbyters were then newly come into the Church and therefore to make the people inclinable to give them a willing Reception without being offended at the novelty of them he still speakes highly in honour of Episcopacy Such Arguments as these you will guesse from hence how incompetent they are to conclude matters of fact done so many hundred yeares agoe such is the question whether Ignatius wrote these Epistles or no It is much more probable that they wanted Arguments of any reall validity who are faine to fly to such Succors as these Yet one farther misadventure there is in forming or making use of this conceit For what is said in those Epistles concerning the honour due to Presbyters or the Presbytery is farre from looking favourably on the Presbyterian Government for certainly as long as there is a Bishop properly so called set over the Presbyters as they know there is in all those Epistles and as long as the Presbyters are to do nothing without commission from him as they knew also and even now quarrell'd at it that by him they are required to doe there is little show of the Presbyterian modell discernible no whit more than there was in England long before they covenanted to cast the Bishops out of the Church It being certaine that no community or equality of Presbyters taken into councell with the Bishop doth constitute the Government Presbyterian as long as there be any Bishops to have power over Presbyters Else had the Convocation of Deanes Archdoacons and Clerks fourteen yeares agoe been the platform of Presbyterian Government in England This is I conceive a full answer to every the most minute part or appearance of Argument here produced against these Epistles and is all that was proper here to be said concerning Ignatius whose Epistles as long as they have any authority with us let it be in the most Reformed purified Edition that ever was or can be hoped for there is evidence enough for the Apostolicall Institution of Bishops in the moderne notion of the word And if after all this they must have no authority for no other crime but because they are such punctuall Asserters of this Doctrine 'T is to little purpose farther to examine or inquire what Antiquity hath affirmed or practised in this matter Sect. V. Testimonies of Irenaeus The use of Presbyteri for Bishops YEt because their Method leads us forward to consider some other of the Antient Writers and I have promised so farre to comply with them I shall now in the next place attend them to the view of two of those Irenaeus and Tertullian p. 114. 115. where having acknowledged of them that they say that Apostles made Bishops in Churches Polycarpe in Smyrna Clemens at Rome c. all that they require of us to prove is that by the word Bishop is meant a Bishop as distinct from Presbyters and the reason why they thinke this needs proving is because both those Authors use the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bishops and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Presbyteri Seniores for the same thing the one calling Anicetus Pius Hyginus Telesphorus Xystus Presbyters of the Church of Rome in his Epistle to Victor the other calling the Presidents of the Churches Seniores in his Apologie and some other places are produced to the same purpose To this therefore I shall now briefly give answer i. e by concession that the same persons who by these two Authors are called Bishops are promiscuously called Presbyteri and Seniores also And therefore secondly that this question being thus farre as to the Names equally balanced betweene us they saying that Bishops signifies Presbyters in the moderne notion we that Presbyters signifies Bishops in the moderne notion some other Indications beside this of the Names must be made use of on either side toward the decision of it Of this sort there is no one offered to us by them and so as they have nothing to incline the balance their way so we have nothing to make answer to in that particular I shall therefore as the onely thing left for me to doe render some few Reasons why the words Bishop and Elders in these Authors must needs signifie Bishops in our Moderne sense And the first proofe as farre as concernes Ironaeus is because Irenaeus who useth these words promiscuously was himselfe a Bishop in our moderne notion and yet is by others in his own dayes call'd Elder of the Church of Lyons at that very time when he is acknowledged to be Bishop of it in our moderne sense of the word This I thus manifest in each part And first That Irenaeus was Bishop of Lyons in such a sense as we now use Bishop appeares by what Eusebius saith of him importing that he was Primate of all France 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith he he was Bishop of the Provinces through France Now this we know cannot be affirm'd of a moderne Presbyter who pretends not to any such wide and singular jurisdiction And this needs no farther proofe it being by D. Blondell in his Apologie for St. Hierome confest that 140. yeares after Christ i.e. nigh 40. yeares before this time the Government of the Church was in the hands of Bishops over all the World one in every Church set over all the rest of the Church For the second part then that at that time when he is thus an acknowleged Bishop and Archbishop he is yet called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elder of the Church I appeale to the Testimony of the Gallicane Church at that time as it lies recorded in Eusebius where in an Embassy performed by him in the name of the Martyrs of Lyons to Elentherius the Bishop of Rome we have these words concerning him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We have intreated our Brother and partaker Irenaeus to beare these Letters to you O Father Eleutherius and we beseech you to prize him at one very zealous of Christ's Covenant If we thought that
Justice would purchase a place to any we had commended him in a principall manner as Elder of the Church for so he is Here nine yeares after he had been Bishop and Archbishop of Lyons about the yeare of Christ 177. he is styled by those Letters Elder of the Church by which it appeares that in his time Elder was the title of Bishop in our Moderne sense and consequently so it may fitly signifie in his own writings and so must needs do there when 't is applied to those who were acknowleged Bishops at that time when by the Presbyterians acknowledgement Episcopacy was come in in that notion wherein we now understand it A second proofe of this is that what in one place out of Papias he saith of all the Seniores or Elders which in Asia converst with St. John that Clemens Alexandrinus who lived in the same time affirmes of the Bishops or Elders of Asia meaning by both of them the Bishops in our notion of the word Clemens Alexandrinus wrote his Stromata about the yeare 192. which is five yeares before Irenaeus Martyrdome in the 5. of Severus Now of this Clemens it is certaine 1. That he acknowleged the three Orders in the Church which he calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the three degrees or promotions in the Church of Bishops Presbyters Deacons and consequently must by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 understand Bishops in our moderne sense Secondly that when he makes the Relation of John's meeting with the Bishops of Asia which is the same matter which Irenaeus produceth out of Papias he calls them in the same period both Elders and Bishops indifferently For speaking of St. John he hath this passage 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Comming to a City not farre off and looking on the Bishop which was constituted over all seeing a young man he said This person I commit to thee And the Elder took him home brought him up baptized and at last gave him confirmation Here it is evident this Elder of Asia one of those which in Irenaeus conversed with Saint John is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Bishop constituted over all in that City and agreeably when Saint John comes back that way againe he calls to him by that title 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 O Bishop render us the depositum which both I and Christ delivered to thee in the presence of the Church over which thou art set Where againe he that is called Elder both by him and Irenaeus is also by him called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Bishop set over the Church And so that is a second evidence of it Thirdly In his Epistle to Victor Bishop of Rome he speakes of his Predecessors thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Elders which were set over the Church which thou rulest Anicetus Pius Hyginus and Telesphorus and lib. 3. cap. 3 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The blessed Apostles having founded and built the Church of Rome put the Episcopal office into the hands of Linus Anacletus succeeded him Clemens Anacletus Evarestus Clemens Alexander Evarestus then Xystus the sixt from the Apostles after him Telesphorus then Hyginus then Pius after him Anicetus after Anicetus Soter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Now in the twelfth place Eleutherus possesses the Bishoprick from the Apostles Here 1. it is evident that every one first named as Elders are yet single persons one succeding another 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 set over or ruling the Church of Rome Secondly That for twelve successions together they are by Irenaeus lookt upon all as of the same ranke succeeding one another and the first as well as the last called Bishop which must conclude it to be understood by him in such a notion as is equally competible to all and so must be in our moderne notion if the great Asserters of the Presbyterian cause say true that about the yeare 140. i. e. certainly before Elutherius was Bishop of Rome there were Bishops over Presbyters all the world over Lastly Irenaeus speaking of some unworthy voluptuous Elders expresseth their faults in such a manner as cannot fitly belong to any but Bishops Principalis concessionis tumore elati sunt they are puft up with the â—ride of the principall place the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the principall chair which as Bishops belonged to them â—or though it is as possible that Presbyters should be guilty of the pride the tumour and elation as that Bishops should be guilty of the same yet the occasion of it there mentioned the principalis consessio the chiefe place of dignity is peculiar to the one and not reconcileable with the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or equality of the other These evidences have readily offered themselves to shew what Irenaeus meanes by Presbyteri when he useth that and Bishops promiscuously viz. by both Bishops in our moderne notion and he that shall reade over that author diligently and compare his dialect with Polycarpe and Papias with whom he accords the former using 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for Bishops as hath largely been insisted on and the latter for Apostles and Bishops single Governors of each Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and elsewhere 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Andrew Peter Aristion John Marke all Elders will doubtlesse finde many more proofes that thus he used the word and I shall adventure to undertake meet with no one indication to the contrary Sect. V. Testimonies of Tertullian Seniores Majores natu for Bishops so in Firmilian AS for Tertullian I shall need say no more but that it is the confession of the great Patron of Presbyterians that he doth aperte tueri communiusu receptam ordinis in Episcopos Presbyteros Diaconos distinctionem Openly defend the received common distinction of the Ecclesiastick order into Bishops Presbyters and Deacons and he that can yet doubt of it let him examine his citations de Praescript cap. 41. de Baptisme cap 17. de Monogam cap. 11. de Fuga c. 11. And that de Baptismo as high cleare as that which was most quarrell'd with in Ignatius Dandi Baptismum jus habit summus sacerdos qui est Episcopus dein Presbyteri Diaconi non tamen sine Episcopi authoritate propter honorem Ecclesiae quo salvo salva pax est The Bishop hath the right of giving Baptisme after him the Presbyters and Deacons yet not without the authority of the Bishop for the honour of the Church which being preserved peace is preserved So that of him it is as cleare as of Irenaeus or Clemens that he must understand Bishop in our Moderne
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
againe to make him testifie against his conscience to say Lent was an Apostolicall tradition and to believe it was not an Apostolicall tradition Here I shall not need debate whether the observation of Lent were Apostolical or no All that is necessary to insist on is whether Saint Hierome that said it was such believed it to be such And if he be mistaken in his beliefe then he may be as well mistaken in the meaning of those passages which he interprets so as is usefull to and in favour of the Presbyterians as that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elders Act. 20. were the Presbyters of the Church of Ephesus that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bishops Phil. 1. are Presbyters of that one Church or City and the like For either of those is but his beliefe or perswasion too and the more fallible they finde him in other things the lesse weight they ought to lay on his opinion in this and the lesse blame on us for departing from his opinion But having said this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the repelling all force of their objection I shall now adde some other testimonies out of Saint Hierome and after them one argument ad homines undeniable to demonstrate that it was indeed and without question S. Hierome's opinion that Bishops in our moderne notion were instituted by the Apostles themselves 1. In his 54. Epistle he sets downe this difference among others between the Catholikes and the Montanist hereticks Apud nos Apostolorum locum tenent Episcopi apud eos Episcopus tertius est Among the Catholikes the Bishops such as were in S. Hierome's time i. e. certainly such as in ours not mere Presbyters hold the place of the Apostles i. e. the uppermost place in the Church of Christ and succeed the Apostles in it and among those Hereticks the Bishop is the third which it seems was one character of their being Hereticks and so a deviation from an Apostolical truth 2. In this Booke de script Ecclâ—sâ— he saith of James the brother of the Lord Jacobus ab Apostolis statim post ascensionem Domini Hierosylimorum Episcopus ordinatus suscepit ecclesiam Hierosolyma Timotheus à Paulo Ephesiorum Episcopus ordinatus Titus Cretae Polycarpus à Johanne Smyrnae Episcopus Ordinatus James presently after Christs Ascension was ordained Bishop of Hierusalem and undertook i. e. ruled as to receive the Congregation Psal 75. is to rule it the Church of Hierusalem Timothy was ordained Bishop of the Ephesians by Paul Titus of Crete Polycarpe was by John ordained Bishop of Smyrna Where as it is evident and by the Presbyterians acknowledged that Timothy and Titus were singular rulers which therefore they are wont to excuse by saying they are extraordinary officers or Evangelists and yet by him said to be Bishops of Ephesus and Crete and so constituted by the Apostles so it is consequent that James and Polycarpe were by him deemed singular rulers also and not Collegues in a Presbytery and those so constituted by the Apostles also and accordingly of this James he saith ad Gal. 2. Jacobus primus ei Ecclesiae praefuit Eciscopus Hierosolymorum primus fuit James was the first that was set over that Church was the first Bishop of Hierusalem And in consequence thereto in his comments on Isae lib. 5. cap. 17. he calls this James Decimum tertium Apostolum the thirteenth Apostle 3. In like manner Epist ad Euagrium speaking of Marke who dying in the 8th of Nero what was done by him must be resolved to have been in the Apostles times and agreeable to then practice he saith Alexandâ—iae à Maâ—co Evangâ—â—â—stâ ad Heraclam Dionysium Episcopos Presbyteri semper unum ex se electum in excelsiori super Presbyteros graduâ— collocatum Episcopum nominabant quomodo si exercitus Imperatorem faceret At Alexandria from the time of Marke the Evangelist to the time of Heraclas and Dionysius Bishops the Presbyters alwayes named one chosen from among themselves and placed in an higher degree above Presbyters their Bishop as if an army should choose their Generall That what is said of the Presbyters choosing their Bishop belongs not to Presbyters imposing hands on him is elsewhere largely evidenced And so by the way appeareth the falsenesse of the citation out of Jerome Appen p. 142. that in Alexandria for a long time the Presbyters ordained it should have been said elected their Bishop That which I here inferre from the testimony is manifest viz. that in Saint Markes time and from the first planting of the Church at Alexandria one Bishop or singular Ruler was constituted among them as that signifies an higher degree than that of Presbyters 4. More places there are in him which evidence his opinion that Bishops as they differ from Presbyters are successors of the Apostles In his Comment on Psal 45. Nunc quia Apostoli à mundo recesserunt habes pro his Episcopos filios sunt hi patres tui quia ab ipsis regeris Now inâ— Hierome's time because the Apostles are parted from the world you have in their steads Bishops their Sonnes They also are thy Fathers because thou art governed by them Where the Bishops that then ruled those are confest to be single persons not Presbyteries are the successors of the Apostles in his opinion And Ep. 1. ad Heliodorum of not undertaking the office of Bishop Non est facile stare loco Pauli tenere gradum Petri 't is not easie to stand in Pauls place to hold the degree of Peter Where Episcopacy is the place and degree of those Apostles And so Ep. 13. ad Paulinum Episcopi Presbyteri habeant in exemplum Apostolos Apostolicos vires quorum honorem possidentes habere nitantur meritum Bishops and Presbyters must have for their Examples the Apostles and Apostolical men whose honour they possesse and therefore ought to endeavour to imitate their merit 5. I shall adde a Cumulus of other passages much to the same purpose with the former and fit to be taken in conjunction with them to give us the full understanding of S. Hierome's opinion in this matter Ad Nepotian Ep. 2. Esto subjectus Pontificituo quasi anima parentem suscipe quod Aaroâ— filios ejus hoc Episcopum Presbyteros esse noverimus Be subject to the Bishop and receive him as the parent of thy Soule what Aaron and his Sonnes were that we must know the Bishop and Presbyters to be And on Tit. 1. speaking of S. Paul's directions for the making a Bishop Apostolus saith he Ecclesiae Principem formans the Apostle forming the Prince or ruler of the Church and so againe in the same words on Psal 45. deciphering a single ruler by that Bishop which the Apostle there meant to forme So on that 45. Psal Constituit Christus in omnibus finibus mundi Principes Ecclesiae Episcopos Christ in all parts of the world constituted Princes of the Church the Bishops just
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
Records of the Church in these words As the Church of Smyrna relates Polycarpe to have beene constituted there by John as the Church of Rome affirmes Clement to have been ordeined by Peter so in like manner the rest of the Churches exhibite the Records of those whom they have had their Bishops constituted by the Apostles and conveyers of the Apostolicall seed to them And more particularly of the Churches of Asia the subject of our present discourse We have the Churches fed by John and the course of Bishops being driven to the Originall acknowledge John the Apostle to be the Author of them Here certainly is light enough to make some confidence excusable in a Prelatist and to make his wonder seasonable that any that have eyes should in so cleare a Sunshine want the use of them and to thinke it no very auspicious omen that they doe Yet because I had much rather assist then upbraid other mens infirmities I have here given them an instance how easie it had been for them to have informed themselves and their respective charges of the grounds of the Prelatists confidence that the Epistle of Christ to the Angels of the seven Asian Churches was an evidence of his approbation of the Order of Bishops in our moderne notion of that word for a single overseer in every Church 12. And if there be any obscurity still remaining in the premises because the Councell of Chalcedon and Policrates makes Timothy who was ordained by Paul the first Bishop or Angel of the Church of Ephesus but Tertullian divolves the Originall of the course or Catalogue to St John the answer is easy that there were two sorts of Christians in Ephesus and throughout all Asia the first of Gentile converts brought into the faith by St. Paul the Apostle of the Gentiles and over them it was that Timothy was by him placed in Ephesu◠their Bishop the second of Jewish Proselites converted by St. John by compact designed to goe to the Jewes as his Province Gal. 2. 9. and those peculiarly the Asian Jewes as appeares every where in Eusebius story and by the relation of his death in that place given us by Polycrates an early Bishop there and the Author of the constiuations out of an antient tradition tells us that another of the same name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was by that Apostle ordained Bishop of the Iewish Christians there as Timothy by S. Paul of the other Congregation of Gentile Christians An observation which is largely educed and exemplified in the Dissertations and of which there is no small use for the dilucidating of obscurities in antient story and the clearing of this controversy betwixt us and the Presbyterians but I must not here take liberty to inlarge on it unnecessarily having beene thus farre forced to expatiate somewhat above proportion to the length of their owne period wherein my confidence and censoriousnesse were shortly accused how deservedly I hope hath now been made manifest Section II. Of Timothy of Onesimus of Polycarpe The next period in their charge against mee runs thus It is farther added that some of the Antient Fathers mention the very men that were the Angels of those Churches Some say Timothy was Bishop of Ephesus when John wrote his Epistle to it Others say Onesimus others say that Policarpe was Bishop of Smyrna And from hence they conclude with a great deale of plansibility that the Angell of the Churches were seven individuall Bishops 2. Here is as yet no great charge offered but a confession rather that I had some temptation for the confidence of which I was formerly accused my conclusion being acknowledged by the adversaries to be inferred with a great deale of plausibility But I have not so much reason to depend on their civilities as to omit the inserting here what may be usefull to prevent mistakes and shall therefore thinke it necessary to set downe intirely what it is which I have affirmed in this matter 3. And 1. I have yet no where said that Timothy was Bishop of Ephesus when John writ this Epistle to that Church My words are expresly otherwise Ex quibus patet vel Timotheum ipsum vel aliquem ei succedaneum hunc ipsum Angelum fuisse quem c. 2. 1. Christus alloquitur By which it appeares having formerly set down my grounds to induce this conclusion that either Timothy himself or some body that succeeded him was that very Angel to whom Christ addrest his speech c. 2. 1. But that is not to affirme it of Timothy but purposely to absteine from affirming any thing that could be denyed or doubted and onely to affirme it either to Timothy or some successor of his which evidently and infallibly it must be if there be truth in the premise from which it was inferred the words of the Councell and the Father that after Timothy the first succeeded of continuall series of Bishops there 4. What my opinion is in this matter I shall now freely tell them though before I had not occasion to doe it together professing it to be onely my opinion and so still affirming nothing in a matter of some uncertainty or farther than the grounds on which my opinon is founded shall appeare able to support it My opinion briefly is that Timothy was then Bishop of Ephesus at the time of addressing that Epistle to the Angel of that Church And the grounds are these 1. That St. Johns banishment and prophesying are by Epiphanius twice expresly affirmed to have been 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the times of Claudius Caesar Then secondly that as it is by Chronologers set downe to be in the 13. of Claudius that Timothy was left by Paul at Ephesus when hee went into Macedonia 1 Tim. 1. 3. Act. 20. so it is generally resolved that Timothy suffered at Ephesus under Nerva and that agreeable enough with his age who appeares to be young when Paul first placed him Bishop of Ephesus If these grounds have truth in them then Timothy cannot be doubted to be Bishop of Ephesus when St Johns vision was received And though 't is true that Ireneus seemes to assigne another date of these visions at least of some of them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 at the end of Domitians Reigne which what it is to be deemed to signifie is elsewhere explained yet still that is within the compasse of Timothies life if hee suffered not till Nerva's Reigne And so much for that of Timothies 5. Secondly that Onesimus was Bishop of Ephesus at the date of that Epistle is no where so much as intimated to be my opinion much lesse affirmed by me And therefore I need reply no more to that Yet because Ignatius in his Epistle to the Ephesians mentions Onesimus their Bishop and that Testimony is produced by me Dissert 2. c. 25. Sect. 9 I shall here freely give them my opinion also of that matter 6. First that there is little ground of question but
hee governed the Metropolitan City of Ephesus that prime Metropolis of all Asia to the Bishop whereof saith Chrysostome was intrusted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the whole Nation of Asia These testimonies may suffice for the substance of the affirmation that St. John governed the Church of Ephesus and under it all Asia which is the notion wee now have of a Bishop Metropolitane and Primate 4. As for the word Bishop how can it be inconvenient to bestow that upon him when hee discharged the Office nay when Christ himselfe that great exemplar and originall of this power is expresly called the Bishop of our Soules as well as the Apostle when the Office from which Judas fell and to which Matthias is assumed is by St. Luke out of the Septuagint called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bishoprick Act. 1. 20. When accordingly from the Scripture usage the Fathers of the Church have continued the style Apostolos i. e. Episcopos Praepositos Dominus elegit the Lord chose Apostles i. e. Bishops and Governours of the Church saith Cyprian and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Peter and Paul were the first or chiefe in Rome the same persons Apostles and Bishops saith Epiphanius and Apostoli Episcopi sunt firmante illud Petro Apostolâ— the Apostles were Bishops as is confirmed by Peter in these words His Bishoprick let another take saith Hilarius Sardus and againe Areall Apostles â—Tis true saith hee quia in Ecelesiâ unus Episcopus because in each Church there is one Bishop And Nemo ignorat Episcopos servatorem Ecclesiâ—s instituisse Ipse enim priusquam ascenderet imponens manum Apostolis ordinavit eos Episcopos No man is ignorant that our Saviour instituted Bishops in the Church for before he ascended to Heaven hee laid his hands on the Disciples and ordained them Bishops saith the Writer of the questions on the Old and New Testament and Sanctus Matthâ—us Episcopatum sortitus est St. Matthew was Bishop saith Gildas And to shut up all 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is manifest that the Apostles were Bishops St John in Asia St. Andrew in Achaia St. Thomas in India saith Gabriel Philadelph And agreeably when St. John of whom we now speake calls himselfe in the front of two Epistles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Elder the Greek scholiast resolves 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the word Elder he calls himselfe Bishop And so there is no newes in thus affirming 5. But then secondly when they take this for an evident demonstration that these Authors did not use the word Bishop in a Prelaticall sense this is very farre distant from a demonstration having not arrived to the lowest degree of probability or credibility For what is a Bishop in the Prelaticall sense but a single person governing in chiefe in a City or wider circuit And such certainly was St. Peter at Rome S. John at Ephesus c. As long as they continued to execute that power of the Keyes the donation of which instituted them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Steward 's in Gods House Governours of the Church in this or that City or Region and ordained other Bishops there Thirdly therefore when 't is added that it is certaine that the Apostles cannot be properly called Bishops I reply that it is most certaine they may not onely because these so many antient Writers through severall ages have called them so and may not with any justice from us be accused of impropriety but because the donation of the Keyes did as properly make them Bishops as the Commission to goe preach to all Nations being added to it made them Apostles To which purpose let these few things be considered 1. That it is here by the Assemblies acknowledged that the Apostles did eminently conteine the Episcopall Office which though it be a little hastily expressed and should be I suppose that the Apostolicall Office did eminently containe the Episcopall yet there is no doubt but this is the meaning of it that the Apostles had all the Episcopall power in their hands and over and above something more and if they had Episcopall power then sure in respect of that they may as properly be called Bishops as in respect of their Apostolicall Commission which they had also they may be properly called Apostles Thus we know that they that have first the power of Deacons bestowed on them and after of Presbyters are questionlesse Deacons still though they be also Presbyters and they which from the Office of Presbyters are advanced to Bishops are certainly Presbyters still though they be also Bishops and doe not lose the former power by being advanced to the latter are not lessened by this increase of their dignity 7. Secondly that when an Apostle is differenced from a Bishop it is either by his extraordinary power granted him for the planting of the Church or by the Vniversality of his Diocese the all the World to which his Commission extended whereas the ordinary Bishop's power and Diocese are more limited But then these differences are of no force in this matter they onely conclude that the Apostle is more than a Bishop in those two respects not that in other sufficient respects he is not a Bishop 8. Thirdly when the Apostles had each of them not onely all together in a consistory that unlimited power in respect of the extent to all the World given to them by Christ wee know that after his ascent they parted and distributed this Province among them assigned every one 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his proper place or lot to which he should betake himselfe for the planting of the faith of Christ And then there will be no doubt but that hee who according to his line in St. Paul's phrase had planted the faith in such a City or Province and sat downe and confirmed and farther instituted which is the meaning of labouring in the Doctrine as well as in the word and govern'd them and exercised all Episcopall acts among them might in so doing be stiled a Bishop in that City or province and that as truely and as properlâ— as he that could doe all the latter and not the former building on another mans foundation goâ—erning and instructing where another had planted the faith might be said to be 9. Nay fourthly we know that although by Canons of the Church there is provision made upon prudentiall considerations that no man shall be made a Bishop sine titulo without a title or particular See to which hee is assigned yet before those Canons forbad it such Bishops there were and those never doubted to be properly Bishops though they were not affixt to any Diocese And then nothing can hinder but that the Apostle who had each the whole World for his Title though hee were never affixed to any particular Diocese or Province might be most properly styled a Bishop for all that But this is ex abundanti more than is needfull to our present praetentions
of St. John who we know was after his returne from banishment affixt to Asia and seated at Ephesus the chiefe Metropolis there to superintend in the Jewish part of the Asian Church over all the Bishops and Metropolitans there 10. To this I might adde fiftly that the Bishops in every City were successors of the Apostles as is largely deduced Diss 3. c. 3. Sect. 14. c. which they could not truly be if the Apostles whom they succeeded were not in vested with that power wherein they succeeded them i. e. were not first Bishops before them But I shall not inlarge of this having no need of more evidences in this matter 11. Fourthly therefore when it is added that if the Apostles be affirmed to be properly Bishops this were to degrade the Apostles and to make their office ordinary and perpetuall This is but a shortnesse of discourse of which a very few words will suffice to admonish any for there is no more strength in that consequence than there would be in affirming that such an one is a Man therefore he is not a living Creature or that he that saith he is a living Creature degrades him from being a man For as to that of ordinary and perpetuall 't is no way inconvenient that the Apostles who had somewhat temporary and extraordinary for the first planting of Churches in respect of which especially they were called Apostles might also have somewhat which was of ordinary perpetuall use in the Church wherein others might and should succeed them and that is it unquestionably which wee meane by the word Bishops when we ascribe it to them or any of them or to Christ himselfe the source and originall Copy of that power in the Church 12. Fiftly when another inconvenience is accumulated on this much to the former purpose but in more words this were to exalt the Bishop above his degree and make him an Apostle end to make the Apostle a Bishop 1. It is evident that if the forementioned exception were true viz. That it were the degrading the Apostle it could not farther be truly said that it were the exalting the Bishop above his degree for supposing one to be above the other the degrading one would make the other eâ—uall to him without any new act of exalting him if the Apostle have already descended to the Bishop sure the Bishop need not cannot ascend to the Apostle I cannot goe up staires to him who hath prevented me by his dignation or misfortune and is already come or fallen downeâ— to me Secondly therefore this makes not the Bishop an Apostle which is a degree higher than he though in respect of the Episcopall power common to them with the Aposles it is nothing strange in the Antient Writers for the first Bishops of the Churches James the Bishop of Jerusalem Thaddaeus Luke Barnabas Marke Timothy Titus Clemens Ignatius to be called Apostles as is evidenced at large in the Dissertations but onely supposes the Apostle to be a Bishop which he may well be as the greater conteineth the lesse though the Bishop be no Apostle as it is confest that the lesse containes not the greater 13. And lastly for the citation out of Dr. Whitaker I have no directions to the place which may inable me to examine it And I know circumstances of the context or the designe of the speech may much alter it from what it signifies to me at my reading it thus cited But if it be distinctly thus and incapable of a more commodious interpretation I cannot consent to the truth of it or comprehend upon what grounds of reason he should so severely censure those Scriptures and Fathers which have been produced to affirme that the Apostles were Bishops and particularly St. John and St. Peter And indeed when it falls out that each of those two Apostles peculiarly calls himselfe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an Elder or as they render it Presbyter I shall demand Did either of those speake properly or no If they did were either of those little distant from mad-men If so I shall be content to be under any censure in their company And therefore if they spake not so properly I shall be content with them to have spoken improperly also But if Apostles may be called Presbyters without any of these inconveniences of degradation in them any insâ—lence in the Presbyter or madnesse in the Speaker my onely remaining Quaere is why they might not without all this adoe be called Bishops also meaning by Bishops as I now meane For I am sure that is the same thing that I understand by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elder in those three places and they who differ from me herein do yet understand it of Presbyters and so had said in the second consideration expresly that St. John calls himselfe a Presbyter and then all the spice of madnesse consists in this thinking a Bishop capable of that exaltation that a Presbyter in perfect sobriety is capable of And so much for the third consideration Section VI. Of the word Angel and Starre pretended to be common to all Ministers Of Messenger and Embassadour The singularity of the word Angel THe fourth consideration is That the word Angel which is the title given to those supposed Bishops doth not import any peculiar jurisdiction or praeeminence but is a common name to all Ministers and so is used in Scripture For all Ministers are Gods Messengers and Embassadours sent for the good of the elect and therefore the name being common to all Ministers why should we thinke that there should be any thing spoken to one Minister that doth not belong to all The same may be said of the word Starre which is also a title given to those supposed Metropolitans It is evident that all faithfull Ministers are called Starres in Scripture whose duty is to shine as lights unto the Churches in all purity of Doctrine and holinesse of conversation There is nothing in these titles that argue these Ministers to be Bishops in our brethrens sense Insomuch as had they not been called Bishops by some authors that succeeded them who spake of former times in the language of their owne times this way of arguing would have been counted ridiculous 2. â—o this consideration I might if it were needfull reply 1. That the word Angel is no where used for any other Officer or Minister in the Church save onely the Prophets such as Haggai c. 1. 13. and John Baptist Mat. 11. 10. and the chiefe Priest Mal. 2. 7. 3. Secondly that as to the words Messenger and Embassador there is in ordinary speech some considerable difference betweene them the latter having in it a connotation of dignity sustaining the person of the King from whom he is sent immediately which is not applicable to the former And agreeably when it is used of St. Paul and Timothy in whose name that Epistle is written 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 wee are Embassadors 2 Cor. 5. 20. there is added 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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
Secondly that though the one Angel of the Church be the person to whom each part of the Epistle is addrest yet in it are set downe the sins and fate of the whole Church i. e. of all the believers in it Thus when the people of Israel or Judah were fallen into foule sins and provocations against God it was ordinary for God to send a Prophet to the King of either of them and admonish him what reformations were to be wrought and what judgements were a comming in case of neglect In which kind of messages of the Prophet delivered to the King 't is certaine that the whole people were concerned and so without question was it here Rev. 2. 10. the Devill shall cast some of you i. e. some Members of that Church into prison c. and so ver 13. among you i. e. among you of that Church or City 10. And indeed if each of those Churches had been governed by a Consistory of co-equal Presbyters and those as is pretended by our adversaries signified by the Angel yet there would be as little reason to doubt but the sins of the people as well as the Clergy were here reprehended by Christ and the judgement threatned to one as well as to the other And to this can be no reason to inferre the Angel to be no singular person the Church ruled by one making up a multitude as well as if it were ruled by a Presbytery 11. As for the place cap. 2. 24. concerning Thyatira that hath a different appearance For the Greek copie ordinarily reading it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But I say unto you in the plural and to the rest which are in Thyatira the you in the plural is by the Objectors thought necessarily to belong to the Angel of that City as the rest to the community of the people To this place therefore we have formerly answered that the reading in the Antient Manuscripts particularly in that belonging to the Kings Library at Saint James's leaves out the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and and reads thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But to you I say the rest which are in Thyatira And this takes away all force from the objection for the former part of the Epistle belonging to the Angel who permitted Jezabel and to them that committed fornication with her the But in the front separates the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 you the rest from the Angel and those other formerly spoken to and therefore the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 you cannot possibly be the Angel wherein all the strength of the Objection consists 12. But this Answer though taken notice of is disliked For say they he that shall view the Antecedent and Consequent and consider that ver 23. it is said I will give to every one of you c. and then followes but I say unto you and then in the conclusion of the verse I will put upon you no other burthen will confesse that the old copies are better than that which is said to be Tecla's Manuscript 13. And here I shall desire the Reader to beare me company in obeying their directions and observe what the Antecedents and Consequents can afford to the prejudice of that Antient copy 'T is most true that v. 23. we read I will give to every one of you and that then it followes v. 24. But I say unto you and in the conclusion of the verse I will put upon you But I demand what will they conclude from hence That by the word you in all these places the same persons are to be understood and that those persons are the interpretation of the Angel v. 18 These two things they must conclude or else they will faile in their designe which is to shew that by the word Angel the collective body of Rulers is meant But the first of these is evidently false whatsoever reading be retained for besides that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But doth clearly separate the second you from the first and makes them distinct persons The very matter of the speeches will convince it For in the 23. v. the you are those that were corrupted by Iezabel v. 20. 22. who are now to be exemplarily punisht and destroyed I will kill her i. e. Iezebels children with death as also those that had committed Fornication with her v. 22. and all the Churches shall know that I am the searcher of hearts and I will give to every of you according to your workes But the second you and so also the third are the quite contrary to these As many as have not this Doctrine and who have not knowne these depths of Satan and consequently who are not to be punished nor so much as admonished but onely confirmed in their present practice to hold fast what they have already 14. So contrary is it to all appearance of truth that the Antecedent and Consequent should favour their pretension 15. This matter is so evident the contrary conditions and fates of the you in v. 23 and the you in v. 14. that if the ordinary reading were to be retained 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and that rendred to you and the rest in Thyatâ—ra so as to difference you and the rest another Antecedent to the Relative you must necessarily be sought out and then that can be no other but the Churches incidentally mentioned v. 23. who had not been charged for this crime For as for the Angel v. 18. if hee were not so remote 6. verses off and if the singular number could be the Antecedent to the plurall 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 you as it cannot yet still he is charged for suffering the Woman Jezabel and so is numbred among the gulity persons that are to repent or be punisht and not to have no other burthen laid on them save only to hold fast what they have as is said of the second 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 you v. 24. 16. But the truth is that of making the Churches the Relative is so inconvenient and yet no other way imaginable to reconcile the ordinary reading and the whole sense is so much more cleare and current in the reading of the King's M S. But to you the rest in Thyatira those that had not beene guilty of the misbehaviours censured and threatned in the former Verses that I professe I cannot discerne any appearance of reason to quesion the truth of it much lesse to conceive that the ordinary copies are better which yet however they read it must oppose the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 you to those before mentioned and so cannot apply it with any appearance of probability to the Angel or consequently pre-judge ours or confirme their pretensions Section IX Of the Elders at Ephesus Act. 20. A Second reason to prove the Angel to be a collective body is this because it is certaine that the Church of Ephesus was a collective body and that there were many Presbyters to whom St. Paul at his finall departure from them committed the charge of that Church
6. Secondly by the severall employments assigned them in the subsequent parts of the vision which brings them upon the scene one after another the first Angel ver 7. the second Angel ver 8. and so to the seventh Thirdly by the distinction that is evidently made between those seven Angels and another Angel ver 3. And another came and stood at the Altar which makes it certaine that the former seven did not signifie all the Angels unlesse after all there could yet be one more Fourthly from the mention of the seven Spirits cap. 1. 4. which are said to be before Gods throne that sure is all one with standing before him here and it being certaine that Angels are Spirits I have no reason to doubt but that these seven Angels are those seven spirits and so still a definite number of seven and no more Fifthly from the mention of the seven Eyes Zach. 4. 10. which seeme to be interpreted to this sence Rev. 5. 6. seven eyes which are the seven Spirits of God sent into all the Land 8. And though in some of these places other men have had other notions yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 't is more to be apprâ—ved that we understood Angels by that phrase cap. 1. saith Andreas Câ—sariensis And of the whole matter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there are seven which have the greatest power the first borne Princes of the Angels saith Clemens Alexandrinus In which words of his the first borne Princes are evidently taken from Dan. 10. 13. where the Hebrew reads 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Principal or first rulers or Princes of which Michael is the first and thence called Archangel 9. And so in Tobit cap. 12. 15. we find seven holy Angels which present the prayers of the Saints which description of them and their office to present the prayers of the Saints if it be thought unagreeable to their standing here before God or being before his throne it will soone be reconciled by that speech of Christ that the Angels of the infant tender Christians alwayes behold the face of God and by that meanes are qualified to make their wants knowne unto him which is all one with presenting of prayers 10. Sixthly from the mention of the seven Lamps Rev. 4. 5. styled Lamps in reference to the like number of Lamps on the Candlestick in the Sanctuary which burne before the throne as cap. 1. they are before the throne For of these it is added 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which are the seven by way of eminencie or the seven Principal spirits of God 11. Seventhly from the no appearance of the least reason produced to the contrary For as to that which is introduced with a For and supplyes the place of a reason it is evidently a bare assertion of the contrary there are no seven individual Angels that stand before God without any offer of proofe that testimony out of Dan. 7. that all doe being far from concluding that there are not such seven principal Angels which these so many evidences assure us there are 12. In that of Dan. 7. 10. upon that solemne occasâ—on of God's judgements exprest by a fiery streame thousand thousands are said to Minister to him and ten thousand times ten thousand to stand before him But how doth that hinder but at another time seven principal Angels may be employed by him and in order to that stand before him too and when we so oft reade of such seven what question but they were individual Angels And so much for the third reason Section XI Of the Epistles being sent to the whole Church not to the Bishop onely Of Timothy Onesimus and Polycarp being Bishops of some of the Asian Churches without any charge of Apostacy falling on them by this meanes THere is a fourth behinds still that though but one Angel â—e mentioned in the fore-front yet it is evident that the Epistles themselves though we are farre from thinking that in formal denomination the Angels and the Candlesticks are the same are dedicated to all the Angels and Ministers in the Church and to the Churches themselves as appeares Râ—v 1. 10. Rev. 2. 7. 11. 17. And therefore when it is said in the singular number I know thy workes This thou hast Repent and doe thy first workes c. All these and the like places are not to be understood as meant of one individual person but of the whole company of Ministers and also of the whole Church because the punishment threatned is to the whole Church Rev. 2. 5. 16. 2. Now we have no warrant in the word to thinke that Christ would remove his Gospell from a Church for the sin of one Bishop when all the other ministers and Churches are farre from those sins 2. To this I shall need make no reply having done it sufficiently already by concession that the Angel being the Ruler of a Church the whole Epistle belongs to him and the Church promiscuously and agreeably those expressions which are used in the singular number doe not all belong to the Bishop but to the Church wherein he praesides But certainly this is farre from inferring that the Bishop and Church are all one or that the word Angel signifies the collective body of the Church for besides that the Text is expresse in making a signall difference between the Starres and the Candlesticks the Angels and the Churches and the Assemblers are here forced to confesse that the Angels and Candlesticks are not the same the confounding them will be as disadvantageous to them as to us and I shall as regularly be able to conclude that the word Angel signifies not the Presbytery but the whole diffusive body of the Church as they can pretend to doe upon their owne postulatum that the Angel denotes not the Bishop but the whole Church it being as certaine that they make a difference between the Church or multitude of believers and the Presbytery that is set over them to rule as we doe between the same Church and the Bishop 3. Thus have we viewed all the reasons produced by them to assert or confirme their first answer and shewed divers wayes how no manner of validity there is in any one or all of them to evidence it to be a solid and every way sufficient answer And therefore there was some use of the next part of the Method to call in the authority of other men to countenance this interpretation Master Brightman Master Perkins Master Foxe who citeth Primasius Haymo Beda Richardus Thomas c. Doctor Fulke Master Meade Gregory and Saint Austin But although they have thought fit to set downe these names yet having omitted to adde their Testimonies and indeed having resolved to forbear because Smectymnuus hath done it already I shall confesse my selfe willing to leave this chase and in stead of leading the Reader so wearisome a walke to examine the severall comments here named and but named give him more shortly my conjecture what truth
may be in them 4. Master Brightman I know and some others 't is possible may have interpreted the Angel to signifie the whole College of Pastors and truly I should much sooner take up an Interpretation upon the bare word of these Assemblers than I would upon no better evidence from M. Brightman He was one learned man long knowne to be unkinde to our Pralates and here are many for ought I know as learned though under the same praejudices 5. Some others here cited I cannot believe are brought to testifie this but onely that what is said to the Angel in each part of the Epistle was said to the whole Church and not onely to the Bishop and if that be all they say it is that which we cannot doubt to affirme with them and have oft confest to understand Christ's Epistle so without any incommodity to our praetensions 6. If I mistake in these conjectures I desire pardon and shall hope to give a better account when I reade the testimonies in the Authors from whence they are cited For in these derivations of testimonies the Assemblers citing them from Smectymnuus Smectymnuus from Master Foxe Master Foxe from Primasius c. there is great possibility of mistake and therefore I shall follow the example before me forbeare adding any more of this matter 7. In the next place they are pleased to take notice as of an objection against their interpretation that some Authors say Timothy was Bishop of Ephesus when our Saviour wrote this Epistle others that Onesimus was Bishop others that Polycarp was Bishop of Smyrna at that time and therefore these Angels must needs be taken individually for so many single persons 8. Of this Objection which they have thus formed for us there is onely thus much of truth that out of authentique Records we bring undeniable evidences for Timothies being constituted by St. Paul Bishop of Ephesus for Onesimus being placed in that See at the time of Ignatius's writing to the Ephesians that Polycarpe was constituted Bishop of Smyrna by S. John of all which we have spoken enough already 9. But of all or any of these being Bishops in those Cities at the very time of Christ's addressing this Epistle to the Angels of each this had no where been our affirmation nor would it have beene usefull to us in any considerable degree if we had grounds positively to affirme it All that is needfull to us is this that by the Antient Records which evidence them to have been so early Bishops in two of those Churches to which Christ's Epistle was sent and Bishops in the notion wherein we now use the word we are secured of the truth of ouâ— collections when from the mention of the seven Angels of the 7. Churches we assert the Ecclesiasticall power in the hands of a single Bishop in each Church to be owned and confirmed by Christ And supposing some other persons and none of these three to have beene those very numericall Angels to whom those Epistles were written this conclusion of ours stands yet as firme as if we could demonstrate it of those very numericall persons there being no reason to doubt but the same manner of Government continued all the Scripture times and to Timothies successour and Onesimus's predecessor being as certainly Bishops as either Onesimus or Timothy himselfe when withall we have already produced mentions from the Antients of the Catalogues of those Bishops which succe dede Timothy in that See 10. Having thus set right the Objection for them so as it is owned by us to be an Objection against them it will now soone appeare what force there is in their answers to it and those are three 11. First that they that say that Timothy was then Bishop offer no little injury to him for they thereby charge him to be guilty of Apostacy and of losing his first love and so out of a blind zeale to Episcopacy they make that glorious Saint to stand charged as an Apostate The like injury is offered by Objections to Onesimâ—s 12. But first you see whatever our opinion is exprest to be we have not affirmed either of these as to the person either of Timothy or Onesimus but left it uncertaine who the Angel of the Church of Ephesus was whether either or neither of these but some successor of the one and predecessor of the other and so what charge soever falls on that Angel it falls not necessarily on either of these 13. Secondly it is already agreed betwixt the parties affirmed by them and acknowledged by me that the Epistle being addrest to the Angel of Ephesus the Church or diffusive body the Christians in it were concerned in the contents of it And then whatsoever charge be found in the Epistle of how heavy a nature soever even of Apostacy it selfe yet there is no necessity the Angel or Bishop should be personally guilty of it and so whosoever the Bishop was though Timothy himselfe our zeale to Episcopacy hath not beene so blind or transporting as to put us on any uncharitable censure to affix any unhandsome character upon so glorious a Saint 14. Lastly to remove this answer yet one degree farther from being satisfactory it no where appeares that apostacy is in that Epistle laid to the charge whether of the Church or Angel The first part is all in commendatiâ—n of their former zeal and the later wherein their charge consists v. 4. is only this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is not as is suggested losing their first love but remitting it Their love to Christ had formerly been strong as death pure and vehement such as had cast out all feare of dangers and evidenced it selfe in couragious confession but now though it were not quite lost yet it was remitted lessened in the degree not so intense as formerly and therefore when they are bid remember from whence they are fallen that fall doth not necessarily signifie Apostacy or renouncing of Christianity for then it had been an impertinent threatning to remove their Chandlestick v. 5. but a falling from the former degree a cooling of the intense heat which had been so laudable in them And so still there is more invalidity in this first answer Section XII Of Timothies being an Evangelist that it hinders not his being a Bishop THe second is that they have already proved that Timothy was an Evangelist in a proper sense and therefore cannot be called Bishop of Ephesus in their sense 2. To this I reply 1. That Timothies being an Evangelist no way prejudgeth his being a Bishop in our â—ense An Evangelist is one commissionated by any of the Apostles ' 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to preach the Gospell to any City or People And a Bishop is one commissionated by the like Apostle to praeside in and governe a Church already planted And what hinders but that he that hath beene employed in the former capacity to plant may elsewhere or in the same place be appointed to Governe and
so the Evangelist be a Bishop 3. Whatsoever Objections can be brought against this I shall not doubt will be easily answered but there is no offer of any here and therefore it will not be pertinent farther to treat it in this place 4. Secondly it must againe be remembred that what is here said of Timothy is proper to his person both from Onesimus and Polycarpe and all other Angels whether succeeding Timothy in Ephesus or praesiding in the other 7. Asian Churches and therefore though Timothy by being an Evangelist were rendred uncapable which yet he was not of being the Bishop of Ephesus in our sense yet those other seven Angels at the very time of the writing this Epistle of which none have been proved to be Evangelists may still be Bishops in our sense 5. Thirdly I shall demand upon the Assemblers principles who allow a Primus Presbyter a Prolocutor in their consistory or Councell of Presbyters might Timothy be that first Presbyter in the Church of Ephesus or did his being an Evangelist hinder him from being so when he was by St. Paul exhorted or appointed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to abide in that City I cannot imagine they will say he could not who give both St. Peter and St. John leave to call themselves Presbyters But if he could in their opinion then why might he not be a Bishop in our sense notwithstanding that he was an Evangelist as well as a Presbyter in theirs I foresee not what answer can be adapted to this Dilemma Section XIII Of the Bishops at Ephesus Of the plurall number in the Epistle to the Angel of Smyrna THere remaines a third branch of the Answer that it will not follow because Onesimus was Bishop of Ephesus in St. John's dayes that therefore he was the onely person to whom Christ wrote his Epistle For St. Paul tells us there were many Bishops at Ephesus besides the supposed Onesimus and Christ may very well write to him and to all the rest as well as him The like may be said concerning Polycarpe for our Saviour speakes to the Angel of the Church of Smyrna in the plurall number Rev. 2. 10. And therefore hee may truly be said to write to all the other Angels that were at Smyrna as well as to one 2. Here is nothing in this branch but what hath beene distinctly forestall'd and spoken to largely already it will suffice that we repeat the heads and leave the Reader to view the places where they are more explicitly handled And 1. though St. Paul should tell us that there were many Bishops at Ephesus as there might be from other Cities occasionally met there yet it would not follow that there were more than one Bishop of that City or consequently that Christ in a peculiar addresse to the Angel of that City could write to more Bishops there 3. But then secondly the whole truth is this that S. Luke and not St Paul tells that upon St. Pauls summons sent to Ephesus many Bishops met him at Miletus Ephesus being the chiefe Metropolis was the fittest meanes to convey the summons to the Cities neer it and from them and not onely from them and not onely from Ephesus came the Bishops to him as hath been declared out of Irenaeus 4. Thirdly for our Saviour's speaking to the Angel of the Church of Smyrna in the plurall number that is not punctually true for though the letter be written and inscribed to the Angel yet as hath oft been said the whole Church is concerned in the contents of it and so speaking to the Angel in the singular he may yet speake to the Church or any members thereof in the plurall number And so much againe to demonstrate the ineffectualnesse of the first Head of Answers Section XIV Of Beza's Interpretation of the Praesident THe second followes upon a supposition but not grant that these Angels were personae singulares and that the word Angel is to be taken individually yet they conceive this will not at all advantage the Episcopall cause For 1. Mr. Beza no great friend to Episcopacy acknowledgeth that by these words to the Angel is meant 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the Praesident as whom it behooved specially to be admonished touching those matters and by him both the rest of his Collegues and the whole Church likewise but then he addeth But that Episcopal degree which was afterward by humane invention brought into the Church of God certainly neither can nor ought to be from hence concluded Nay not so much as the Office of a perpetuall President should be of necessity as the thence arising Oligarchical tyranny whose head is the Antichristian beast now at length with the most certaine ruine not of the Church onely but of the word also maketh manifest By which quotation it is evident that though Beza held the Angel to be a singular person yet he held him to be Angelus Praeses not Angelus Princeps and that he was Praeses pro tempore just as a Moderator in an Assembly or as a Speaker in Parliament 2. To this I reply 1. that Mr. Beza's interpretation as it was foreknown and formerly mentioned by us so was it not in reason to be of any force or authority with us if it be but upon the score intimated here that he was not onely no great friend but a knowne profest enemy of Episcopacy and so was obliged to be by the course wherein he was engaged at Geneva All that his authority concludes is that to avoid a plaine testimony which is not for his turne a man may be induced to affirme that confidently for which he hath no ground of proofe nay wherein all wayes of evidence that th◠matter is capable of are absolutely against him 3. Thus 't is certainly in this matter for when Beza hath here acknowledged that the Angel was the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 President who will be the most competent Judge or Witnesse to determine what was meant by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Praesident in the Primitive Church what kind of Praesidency he had whether onely of place or order and that onely for a time or of superiority of power and office and that perpetuall In all reason this is to be fetcht from those first Writers which speake of it and either use the very word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 President for such a Bishop as we now assert a singular person in every Church having a power for life over all the Officers and Members of the Church and succeeding some Apostle or Apostolicall person in that power or else in other words affirme the same thing 4. Of this store of evidences are elsewhere produced in the explication of the severall titles by which this singular prefect was antiently knowne whether of Apostle in a secondary use of that word of Angel of Bishop of Elder of Ruler of Pastor of Doctor of Steward of President of Priest Against which the bare authority of Mr. Beza's name who hath fancied
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
Reinolds's scheme in this matter being sufficiently instructed by the Primitive records and practice what kind of power and dignity belonged to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Praesident among them the very same that we now pretend to be the Bishops due And if Christ's letter were addrest to the Angel as to such a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Praesident 't is all that we desire to erect our fabrick of Spiscopacy on this one place if there were not as there are others able to support the weight of it 9. And so we see what reasons have been brought to make good their second head of Answers of which we had promise that they were solid and every way sufficient answers and yet in the issue there is nothing so much as offered toward it save onely the testimony of Master Beza the Divines at the Isle of Wight which is by interpretation themselve◠and Doctor Reynolds who yet is not perfectly of their party neither Section XVI Of the Churches of Asia being Metropolitical Of the paueity of believers HAving thus done they say It is objected by some men that the seven Cities in which these seven Asian Churches had their seat were all of them Metropolitical and so had relation to the rest of the Towns and Cities of Asia as unto daughters rising under them and that therefore these Churches were Metropolitical Churches and their Angels Metropolitical Bishops 2. How this comes to be styled an objection I cannot well guesse or what it is against which it is thought to be objected The truth of it as farre as any Episcopal person I know is interessed in it is this It is not onely evident of the Angels of the seven Asian Churches that they were Bishops which is sufficient for us against the Assemblers but there is over and above that all reason to deem them Starres of a first magnitude i. e. Bishops of Mother-Cities Metropolitanes and that very pertinent to be urged in this matter of the Asian Angels not to secure the proofes of Episcopacy taken from thence but to render a reason why in all Asia but seven Churches and their Bishops are named there To this purpose the discourse is inlarged above what it needed to have been Dissert 4. 5. to set downe the nature of Metropolitanes the exemplars of them among the Jewes the expresses of the Institution in the Apostles writings and the signal evidences of it in the Primitive Church and the Antient Canons in the Councel of Nice and Antioch and Ephesus all owning them as Primitive and Apostolical Institutions and all this exemplified in Jerusalem in Antioch in Rome in Alexandria in Gortyna of Creet and at length in all the seven Churches of Asia 3. What is there thus set down if it have not perfect truth in it I shall be very glad to see the weake parts of that discourse discovered and therefore though I never proposed or meant it as an Objection of ours against the Presbyterians having no need of such auxiliaries and the whole matter being sufficiently proved without and this onely added ex abundanti yet I shall most willingly attend their motions and see what answers they will adapt to this Objection as they call it 4. And 1. they answer that it will hardly be proved that these seven Cities were all of them Metropolitical Cities in S. John's dayes And the scituation of most them lying neerer together on the Sea side makes it very improbable 5. To this I reply that for five of them Ephesus Smyrna Sardis Pergamus and Laodicaea Pliny that lived and wrote in the beginning of Vespatian's reigne is a competent witnesse that they were Cities wherein the Roman Proconsuls sixt their Courts or Seats of Judicature and administred justice there to all the Cities about them and that is the interpretation of a chiefe City or Metropolis in the secular account and agreeably Vlpian mentions Ephesus as the chief of these Metropoles And for the other two Philadelphia and Thyatira the latter of these by Ptolomee the former by the Councel of Constantinople sub Menâ is punctually affirmed to be a Metropolis To these are added other evidences and reasons and the Lord Arch-Bishop of Armagh hath written besides his Original of Metropolitanes a very learned Dissertation of the Lydian Asia on purpose to cleare this matter 6. And when a thing is so largely proved already and when a satisfactory proofe of it in any one of the seven Cities is abundantly sufficient to the asserting of Metropolitanes for then the Angel of that one was a Metropolitan 't is then certainly a very incompetent confutation barely to say that it will hardly be proved that these seven Cities were all of them Metropolitical Cities in Saint John's dayes for if it be proved it matters now how hardly and if any one were so in S. John's dayes it matters not if possibly some other were not that one was a Metropolitical Angel which is all we need insist on 7. And for the Argument to make it improbable drawn from the situation of the Cities that is as infirme for this as all other controversies of matters of fact must be waged by authorities of those which were likely to know the truth and to testifie aright and to those we have all reason to adhere and not to be moved by arguments that seeme probable to those that live 1600. yeares after and are not perhaps so perfect Masters of the Geographie of the place as duly to be able to judge even what is in that respect most probable 8. Nay for the distances of these Cities though I have not now Mr. Brightman by me yet my notes out of him tell me that in his scale of furlongs Pergamus was distant from Smyrna 540. furlongs i. e. about 68. English miles and Ephesus from Smyrna 320. i. e. about 40. miles and Thyatira from Pergamus 80. English miles which is a distance very reconcileable with their being Metropoles 9. But they are content to suppose this was true and then have answers ready another way 1. That it is no good argument from the greatnesse of the Cities to inferre the greatnesse of the Churches for though the Cities were great yet the Churches were but small and the number of believers very few in comparison of the rest of the people 10. To this I reply 1. by concession that in all places and times the greatnesse of the Church cannot absolutely be concluded from the greatnesse of the City because it is possible that a great City may have utterly resisted the faith and a lesser City received it or againe a greater City that hath received the Faith in some of the Members may yet have fewer believers in it than another City which is not so great This therefore is not our way of concluding from the bare greatnesse of the Cities to infer the great number of believers in them 11. Our way of concluding is this Paul had spent three yeares Act.
20. 31. in this Lydian or Proconsular Asia ver 18. In this time he had pursued his worke very diligently and zealously not ceasing to warne every one night and day with teares and herein his harvest was proportionable to his labour After two years space and upwards spent at Ephesus it is said ver 19. that by the continuance of his preaching and gathering Disciples all they that dwelt in Asia heard the word of the Lord both Jews and Greeks and though many were hardned and believed not and spake evil of that way ver 9. yet ver 17. by some extraordinary workes of his which were made knowne to all the Jews and Greeks dwelling at Ephesus feare fell on them all and the name of the Lord Jesus was magnified a conversion in a manner general and therefore it followes and many that believed ver 18. and so mightily grew the word of God and prevailed ver 20. Whereupon Saint Paul himselfe speaking of these successes calls it a great dore and an effectual 1 Cor. 16. 9. which at Ephesus v. 8. was opened unto him 12. From hence we conclude and sure safely may 1. that in Asia generally and especially in Ephesus there was a great number of Christians before this time of Christs Epistle which is not a concluding it barely from the greatnesse of that or any other Cities of Asia Secondly from hence together with Ephesus's being in the secular account the Notitiae Imperiales a Metropolis where the Assizes were kept we conclude that Ephesus was in the Christian account also a Metropolis and the chiefe of all Asia and this I hope is not so improbable infirme a way of concluding as the other imposed on us seemed to be 13. Thirdly from hence and from other exemplifications of it as that Trallis and Magnesia which appeare to be under the Metropolis of Ephesus are by Ignatius written to as all Episcopal Sees in our present notion of the word Bishop we conclude that other Cities of Asia beside these seven had received the Christian faith and were certainely taken care for by Paul which had planted it among them and agreeably had Rulers setled in them i. e. Bishops subordinate to the Metropolitans And all these inferences I doubt not will appeare regular enough and I should farther enlarge on them if there were any thing in the answer which could render it needful or seasonable 14. As for the paucity of Christians in those times in comparison of the rest of the people that cannot be pertinently opposed to our pretensions because still the number of Christians in a great City might beare the same proportion to the number of the Christians in the smaller Cities that the people in the one did to the people in the other one thousand bearing the same proportion to one hundred that an hundred thousand doth to ten thousand 15. And it being the affirmation of Clemens that the Apostles in each City where they received any proselytes though never so few before their parting constituted a Bishop with his Deacon who was to be governor 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of those that should after believe it followes unquestionably from thence that in the Cities which had but few Christians Bishops might be and were constituted and those very regularly depending on the greater their Metropolitical Cities from whence the faith was derived to them as from Ephesus where Paul chiefly resided to the Cities about it and all this without any need of ballancing the parties or considering what comparison the number of the Christians in one or the other bore to the number of the unbelievers in either City And let this serve by way of Reply to the first branch of the second answer Section XVI Of modelling Churches according to the Government of the Roman state Of exemplars of Metropolitans among the Jewes Testimonies of the Apostles instituting Metropolitans THeir second answer is we doe not believe that ever it can be proved that the Apostles did modell the Government of the Church according to the Government of the Roman state This was the after policy of Christian Emperours and Bishops but no part of Apostolicall policy And therefore it doth not follow that because there were divers Cities under the jurisdiction of those 7. Cities that therefore there should be divers Churches subordinate to the 7. Asian Churches 2. That the Apostles which designed to plant a Church in the Heathen World should doe it in that manner as would be most advantagious to their end will not I hope be accounted strange This generally was by betaking themselves to the Cities rather than the villages and first to the greater Cities unto which was the most frequent resort that by that meanes the faith might be most compendiously and successefully propagated If a greater City resisted their preaching or fewer Saints were gathered there I do not then pretend to prove or to believe that that was constituted a Metropolitan Church with superiority over others of greater antiquity or larger growth in the faith whatsoever the dignity of it were in the secular account But when a whole Nation is converted and the greatest and most populous Cities first and from thence the sound gone out into all the Region and lesser Cities in it that then the Apostles which certainly constituted Bishops in every believing City and therefore what is reported to have been done 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in every Church Acts 14. 23. is appointed to be done 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in every City Tit. 1. 5 should set up the principall Sees in those most Christian Cities which had formerly the priority in the Romane state as it is the wisest method and fittest for the wisest planters to take so we have all reason to believe it was done particularly in the Lydian or Proconsular Asia in which there being many more Christian Cities than those seven to whom Christ's Epistle is addrest those are in all reason to be accounted the chiefe of that Region and those which are not named lesse princiâ—all than they which concurring with what we finde recorded in Pliny and Ptolomy of the account of them in the imperiall noticiae if it demonstrate not is yet matter of exceeding great probability and may perswade with any reasonable man as long as there is nothing in any degree such which is offered to be confronted against it 3. If that which scandalizeth the Assemblers for we are left to Divine what it is be the unfitnesse that the Apostles should modell the Church according to the Roman state I shall first demand how it is possible to imagine a plantation of a Church in any whether Jewish or Heathen state without doing somewhat equivalent to this For suppose Joseph of Arimathea to have as Gildas saith converted the Britannick church in Tiberius's time is it to be imagined that he should meddle with the civill power of this Nation as it stood in respect of it's separation from other Nations toto divisa
Orbe or with the divisions or distributions of this Nation within it selfe into Cities and Provinces c. or goe about to innovate any thing in that matter Is it not certaine that it was no part of the Christian faith to be such a judge or divider but on the other side that all should remaine as it did in that respect before the coming of Christianity And therefore supposing 1. That this Nation were governed by a King of its own is it not certain that this nationall Church should follow the boundaries of the Nation and so be modeld according to the government of the formerly Heathen Britannick state And supposing againe what hath already been proved by the testimony of Clemens and by comparing Act. 14. 23. with Tit. 1. 5. that a Bishop were constituted in every Church in each City will there be any reason of doubting but that those Cities being subordinate one to another according to the customes of the Nation the Churches in those Cities and the Bishops in those Churches shall be so also This I hope will not be deemed an impious compliance with heathenisme or conformity with the World nay though the Emperour of Rome by his conquests here were the author of these distributions 4. But then secondly it is already cleared in the Dissertations that this Ecclesiastick division of Cities into Mothers and Daughters Metropoles and inferiour Cities was by the Apostle copied out from the Jewes as when God commands by Moses that Judges and Officers should be ordained in every City Deut. 16. 18. and that in matters of weight and doubt they should resort to Jerusalem to the Judge and Sanhedrim there according to which it appeares that Jerusalem was the Metropolis of those other Cities and so is evident Act. 9. by the story of Saul carrying Letters of Commission from the Sanhedrim there to the consistories in Damascus and by many other evidences So likewise Numb 3. when three Families of the Levits the sonnes of Aaron were separated for the service of the Tabernacle and an head or Prince or President of every of these called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 v. 24. 30. 35. Eleazar Aaron's Sonne is constituted over all these and styled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the head of the heads of the Levites This is clearly a patterne of the Metropolitanes in the Christian Church which may therefore owne it's derivation from thence and not from the Heathen models of Government which yet it was not reasonably to disturbe being found so concordant to and commodious for it 5. And that what was done in this kind was done by the Apostles themselves and Apostolicall persons the first founders of Churches and not onely by the after policy as is suggested of Christian Emperours and Bishops might have appeared abundantly by these few testimonies of they had been worthy to be taken notice of First of the councell of Nice An. Domini 325. not many yeares after the conversion of Constantine the first Christian Emperour Can. 6. which takes care for the preserving the priviledges of the Metropolitanes by name that the Bishop of Alexandria should have power over the Churches in Aegypt Lybia and Pentapolis that in Antioch and the rest of the Provinces 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the priveleges should be preserved to the Churches begins with this rule 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let the antient customes continue in force which certainly referres to that which was long before the Christian Emperours and without any reason of doubting to the first constitutions of those Churches by St. Marke and St. Peter and then the Canon goes on to exact this by way of conformity with other places with Rome it selfe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for this is the custome of force with the Bishop of Rome and upon these grounds the Canon requires 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 universally that if any man be made a Bishop 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without the judgement of the Metropolitan he ought not to be Bishop 6. So in the 9. Canon of the Councell of Antioch in the yeare 341. which begins thus that the Bishop which presides in the Metropolis ought to know the Bishops in every Province and to take care of the whole Province 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because all that have businesse resort from all sides to the Metropolis which is the very thing we now contend to be the reason of conforming the Ecclesiastick to the civill models and then proceeds to forbid other Bishops acting any thing of such a nature without him this is backt with these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to the antient Canon of our Fathers which hath been in force referring againe to the immemoriall custome of all Churches since the first plantation and not the after-policie of Christian Emperours and Bishops as is here suggested 7. Lastly in the last canon of the Great councell of Ephesus in the yeare 431. which is the defining a speciall matter of Metropoliticall right where the occasion of the controversie is rehearsed how the Bishop of Antioch invaded the priviledges of the Cypriots contrary to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the antient custome and the decree is made that the Bishops of Cyprus shall retaine them inviolate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to the Canons of the Holy Fathers and the antient custome The Canon extends it selfe to all other Dioceses and Provinces that no Bishop shall meddle with another Province 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which was not upward and from the beginning under his i. e. his praedecessors power where it is most evident that the Metropolitical power and primacy Ecclesiasticall is derived from the beginning of the plantation of each Church and consequently that this was a part of Apostolicall policy and not onely an after policy of Christian Emperours c. 8. And upon these grounds of probation I shall be competently secured that this is proved which they doe not believe ever can be and have no other argument to prove their negative but their not believing the affirmative Section XVII Of the objection against Metropoles from the seven Starres in seven Churches OF the same temper is their third answer that they are fully assured that it can never be made out that any of these Asian Angels were Archbishops or Bishops over other Bishops or Bishops over divers settled Churches The seven Starres are said in Scripture to be fixed in their seven Candle-stickes or Churches not one Starre over divers Candle-stickes or Churches 2. What they are already fully assured of that it can never be made out I shall have little confidence to perswade them was formerly done to their hands Otherwise I should hope that by what had long since been said and hath now been more largely deduced in Reply to their last answer they might find cause to alter their judgements and retract their so definitive sentence of full assurance 3. As for the onely appearance of reason which is here superadded viz.
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
Titus was Apostle of the Cretanes and Timothy of the Asiaticks So when Chrysostome and Theophylact and Oecumenius approve of the third species and affirmes Bishops to be called Presbyters and Deacons also and on the contrary Presbyters to be called Bishops yet of each of them it is notorious that they asserted the superiority of Bishops over Presbyters not onely in their owne but in the Apostles time And to that purpose the concession and testimony of Peter Moulin was produced that the most famous Bishops of the antient Church Chrysostome c. did not thinke it any diminution to their dignity that the words Bishop and Elder were at first conceived to be used in the same sense which observation being premised and thereby the Prelatists pretensions competently secured which soever of those senses should be accepted so long as they that were authors of the assertions be permitted to give their owne interpretation of them It was then I thought perfectly seasonable and safe to discusse the question freely and to set downe what to me appeared most probable without prejudice to any other dissenter and upon those termes and not otherwise these two propositions were offered to farther consideration of learned men 1. That the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Scripture constantly signifie a singular Bishop 2. That the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 either constantly signifies a Bishop also or else commonly a Bishop and sometime but rarely a Presbyter These are somewhat different from the two paradoxes affixt to me And in these termes I shall now resume them againe and cleare them to be no paradoxes And begin first with the former of them concerning the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bishop And this is already done 1. By considering the originall notation and use in the Old Testament of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 then by going over every place in the New Testament where the word Bishop is used Section II. Of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 THe word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 naturally signifying an overseer and used by Aristides for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Governour the same that Justinian calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Ruler of Provinces and Metropoles and by Cicero ad Articum rendred speculator custos one that lookes to and guards a Province and so fitly styled Angel who 's generally deemed to have those two Offices and is in the Scripture called an eye and vulgarly a guardian doth in the Greeke of the Old Testament sometime render the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is common to God Lord Angel and generally denotes Dominion sometimes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Praefect or Commissary intrusted with the administration of some affaire whether in army as a Commander Numb 31. 14. in Mechanicall working as a Master-workeman 2 Chron. 34. 12. 17. in a City a Ruler or Prince Nehem. 11. 9. peculiarly the chiefe of the Priests v. 10 in the Ministery of the Temple as Eleazar the Ruler of the Levites Num. 4. 16. and lastly in the House of the Lord the Ruler set over that 2 Kin. 11. 18. And the result of all this is that it generally signifies an office of charge and dignity and power and superiority over others all one with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which are all used to render the same word that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth and so is most fitly qualified to signifie the like viz. a praefecture in the Christian Church under the New Testament Accordingly there we finde it applied 1. to Christ himselfe the Bishop of our soules who though he ministred to his Disciples yet owned the title of Lord and Master as that which from them belonged to him Joh. 13. 13. Secondly to the Apostles Act. 1. 20. And for all other places where it is used it is evidently capable of a sense very agreeable to these premisses being never once used in the New Testament but where it will be very commodious to render it Bishop in our moderne notion of the word for a singular prefect in each Church not a collegue in a Presbytery This is at large shew'd by a survey of every of those places First that of Act. 20. 28. where the Apostle takes leave and exhorts the Bishops set over the flock by the Holy Ghost They are there bid to feed the Church of God i.e. the Christians of the severall Cities of Asia or neer about Ephesus as was in the last Chapter evidenced out of Irenaeus auditor to Polycarpe made Bishop of Smyrna by St. John and therefore may well be resolved to be the singular Bishops of those Cities and not onely of the one City of Ephesus as was largely shewed in the last Chapter The second place is that of Phil. 1. 1. where after the mention of all the Saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi is added with the Bishops and Deacons where although some of the Greeke Commentators which at the same time assert Episcopacy do for that very reason because there could not be many Bishops in one City understand that place of Presbyters in our moderne notion and adde that the words Bishop and Presbyter yea and Deacon too were not as yet distinct but promiscuously used the one for the other here the word Bishops for Presbyters as elsewhere the Presbytery is used for Bishops 1 Tim. 4. 4. adding this reason because Presbyters ordeined not a Bishop And although many expedients were ready at hand to keepe the Text from being usefull to the Presbyterians in case it were granted that by Bishops the Presbyters were meant as that Epaphroditus their present Bishop as is acknowledged by Theodoret Chrysostome and Theophylact who are most favourable to that interpretation was with St. Paul at the writing that Epistle c. 4. 18. yet I have the authority of Epiphanius to affirme that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there signifies peculiarly Bishops and I doubt not but it may doe so referring it to all the Bishops of the severall Cities belonging to that Metropolis For such was Philippi both as the first-fruits of all Macedonia first converted to the Faith 2 Act. 16. 9. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a prime City of that Province of Macedon v. 12. of it selfe before it's conversion and so saith Photius distinctly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and accordingly Polycarps Epistle to them is inscribed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the whole province that belongs to Philippi In which there being diverse Cities and Bishops in them the Epistle to St. Paul is to be conceived written to them all as the Epistle to the Corinthians appeares to have been written to the Saints of all Achaia and being inscribed to Philippi was to be communicated to those others as the Epistle to the Colossians was to be communicated to the Laodicaeans Col. 4. 16. and that which the Laodicaeans had received whether as Tertullian seemes to believe that to the Ephesians or any other in like manner to
for this must be contained in these words of theirs that follow in the former place The occasion of that Epistle seemes to be a new sedition raised by the Corinthians against their Presbyters p. 57. 58. Clemens to remove their present sedition tells them how God hath alwayes appointed severall orders in his Church which must not be confounded in the Jewish Church he appointed High-Priest Priests and Levites And then tells them for the time of the Gospell that Christ Jesus sent his Apostles as before citing the words of Clement already set down But certainly this doth not prove Bishops in that Epistle to be no more than Presbyters but may as fitly be argumentative for me that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elders in that Epistle signifie Bishops The onely imaginable medium of proofe which can be usefull for their turne I shall suppose to be this that Corinth was but one City and therefore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elders at and of Corinth must needs be Presbâ—ters because according to our opinion there were not more Bishops in one City But to this I answer 1. That what Clemens saith in the testimony now produced he speakes not of Corinth peculiarly but of the Cities and Regions in generall which the Apostles converted and of them in the plurall number 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 through Regions and Cities and then in those many Cities there may well be many Bishops and yet certainly no more than one in one City Secondly that this Epistle of Clemens to the Corinthians was not to the Christians of that one City but to the whole Province of Achaia of which Corinth was the Metropolis and wherein the Proconsull of Achaia resided and kept his Courts Act. 18. 12. 15. So the Title of the Epistle inclines being inscribed to the Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which denotes the whole Province then called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as when in Polycarps Epistle the Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not onely that of the City Philippi but of the Province belonging to it and in the other part of the title of this Epistle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Church of God dwelling about Rome in the Church of Rome and all that belonged to that Metropolis called by Ignatius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the place of the Region of the Romans i. e. the City and the whole Region about it And so when Eusebius mentions Dionysius the famous Bishop of Corinth he calls him Bishop 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Province of or about Corinth And that this is the truth of it and no conjecture of mine may appeare by one character in the Epistle He tells them that they had formerly received Epistles from St. Paul This directs to resolve that these to whom this Epistle was addrest were the same to whom St. Paul's were formerly sent And it is evident that those were the Saints or Christians in all Achaia 2 Cor. 1. 1. And the same is doubtlesse implied by the phrase in every place 1 Cor. 1. 2. not in every place simply of the World for it was no Catholick Epistle but a particular admonition for particular faults incest c. but in that whole Porvince or Region of Achaia So that which Apollos is said to have done among them Apollos hath watered 1 Cor. 3. 6. appeares by the story Act. 18. 27. to have belonged to all Achaia And so what the Apostle writes to them of sending their offertory to Judaea 1 Cor. 6. 1. 2 Cor. 8. and 9. doth appeare by Rom. 15. 26. to appertaine to all Achaia Macedonia saith he and Achaia have pleased to make a contribution and 2 Cor. 9. 2. I know your forwardnesse that Achaia hath been ready above a yeare agoe Where the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 you and Achaia must needs be of the same latitude and so againe it is c. 11. 9. compared with v. 18. And so those of St. Paul and consequently this of Clement was not to the City of Corinth alone but to all the Churches of Achaia and if among them there were more Bishops than one there will certainly be no newes in that and if those Bishops according both to the nature of the word and the use of it in those dayes before and after Clement were styled sometimes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sometimes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 also then all is very agreeable to all that we contend for that there was one Bishop not a College of Presbyters in Clements dayes in every City And this is directly the importance of Clements words as they lie in the Epistle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Christ was sent out from God and the Apostles from Christ As my Father sent me so send I you And then to shew that the Bishops were in the same manner sent i. e. commissionated by them he addes that they i. e. the Apostles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 went out Preaching 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Therefore Preaching through Regions and Cities they constituted their first fruits for Bishops and Deacons Cities and Regions in the Plurall and Bishops and Deacons proportionable thereto And when he addes that they were thus made of their first fruits i. e. of those that were first converted by them and to this end that they might be officers of those which should after believe supposing that there were not many now that did so this is directly a description of those times of which Epiphanius speakes saying that when the Gospell began to be Preacht there was yet no neede of Presbyters but Bishops and Deacons served the turne And accordingly Deacons in those dayes were immediately made Bishops as is sufficiently knowne of Clement the Writer of this Epistle who was St. Peters Deacon and Bishop after him as is cleared in Dissert 5. c. 1. Sect. 11. And so much for that first testimony One thing onely more from hence they are desirous to conclude that in the first and purest times the custome was to choose Bishops in Villages as well as in great Cities grounded upon this that here the Apostles are said to have appointed Bishops 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as well as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But there is no ground of this conclusion in this testimony For 1. here is no mention of villages 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not Greek for them but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 't is the former not the latter which here we finde It is evident what is meant by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when it is joyned with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cities viz. Provinces which have each of them many Cities in them and when it is joyned with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Villages it sitly denotes Regions in which there are many Villages So saith Strabo of Asia 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Romans made that Region a Province and so in the Ecclesiastical writings 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a Province made up
which they used the probablest meanes imaginable named successors to the present Bishops in every Church who should supply the vacant places as soon as they fell and so prevent suing and contending for them and were by the speciall spirit of God directed who those successors should be so that the opposing their succession or casting them out afterwards must be a great sin even of resisting the spirit of God who had designed them to this inheritance Which next to Christ's bearing them in his right hand Rev. 1. 20. is the greatest character of dignity and evidence of Christ's approving of the Order and care of continuing it as the originall of union not division in the Church There is not by these men one word of objection offered against this conclusion thus formerly deduced in the Dissertations and therefore I need adde no more for the vindicating this testimony yet will it not be amisse here to interpose the words of Hegesippus one that was present at the time of that sedition and gives an account of it in Eusebius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Church of the Corinthians continued in the right untill Primus was Bishop of Corinth Which is a testimonie as antient as that of Clement and tells us what Bishops they were which Clement speakes of such as Primus was at Corinth i. e. one singular Governour in a City The same will be yet more manifest if we consider what by all Authors is affirmed of Clemens himselfe the writer at the time of writing this Epistle that having been Saint Paul's Peter's Deacon Ignat. in Ep. ad Trall he was no Bishop of Rome by the joynt suffrage of Irenaeus and all the Antients even of Saint Jerome himselfe in his Catalogue and by him styled an Apostolical person on Isa 52. a companion of the Apostles in Interp. Com. Orig. in Rom. and by Clemens Alexandrinus Strom. lib. 4. an Apostle in the sense that Theodoret saith those whom in his time they called Bishops had been at first called Apostles Accordingly of him saith Irenaeus in his Catalogue of the successive Governors of the Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the third place from the Apostles Clemens came to the Bishoprick Which how it is easily to be accorded with those who truly make him Peters immediate successor see Dissert 5. c. 1. Sect. 6. c. Other testimonies there are producible from this Epistle of Clement which are all to the same purpose with the former As when he findes an image of the Ecclesiasticall state under Bishops and Deacons in the prophecie of Isaiah cap. 60. 17. where in the Greek translation then in use he had read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I will constitute their Bishops in righteousnesse and their Deacons in faithfulnesse speaking of the Judges and their Ministers and officers in every City And so againe when he exhorts them to give due honour to the Elders among them talkes of their sedition against their Elders and casting them out of their Episcopacy in one place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and removing them from that honoured office 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in another and the like All of the same importance and to be interpreted by the former Sect. II. The Testimony of Polycarpe That he was himselfe a Bishop His mention of Ignatius's Epistles fit to give authority to them being so confirmed as it is by a series of the Antients IN the next place followes their testimonie out of Polycarpe introduced in this manner The like Record we have of Polycarpe that famous Disciple of John the Apostle who lived also within the first century and wrote an Epistle to the Philippians in which he makes also but two Orders of Ministery Bishops and Deacons and perswades the Philippians to be subject to their Presbyters and Deacons as to God and Christ To this Testimony from Polycarp there is no reason I should deny any part of my assent being so perfectly such as the cause which I defend requires If there be with him but two orders of Ministery Bishops and Deacons and he perswades the Philippians i.e. that whole Province the same to which Saint Paul had written consisting of many Churches all under that Metropolis of Philippi to be subject to their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elders and Deacons and sets the former of them in the comparison to answer God the Father the supream Monarch of Heaven and the latter to be the parallel to Christ who came out from Heaven upon his Fathers messages then what reason have I to doubt but that these Elders and Deacons are the very same which Saint Paul had called Bishops and Deacons Phil. 1. 1. which that it belonged to the severall Bishops of that Province of Macedonia hath before been sufficiently vindicated And therefore without farther debating this Testimony I shall adde some few things concerning this Polycarp which will helpe conveniently to cleere the whole matter First That as it is most true that is here said of him that he was a famous Disciple of Iohn the Apostle so this is added to his titles by the authontiâ—k Epistle of the Church of Smyrna 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This was the most wonderfull person in our times being an Apostolicall and Prophetical Doctor and that he was a most glorious Martyr is the designed matter of that whole Epistle Secondly That this famous most admirable Apostolical Doctor and Martyr was the Bishop of Smyrna and so constituted by the Apostles as will appeare by three Testimonies each of them irrefragable 1. By the Epistle of that Church of Smyrna written on purpose concerning his Martyrdome a reverend piece of Antiquity fit to compare with any that remaines in the Church And there we finde in the close of his titles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that he was Bishop of the Catholike Church which is in Smyrna i. e. both of Iewish and Gentile Christians there So Polycrates the eight Bishop of Ephesus borne within a while after Saint Iohn's death in his Epistle to Victor 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Polycarp the Bishop of Smyrna and Martyr So Irenaeus lib. 3. cap. 3. speaking of him saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that he was constituted by the Apostles Bishop of the Church of Smyrna in Asia And then what possibility can there be that he being thus a Bishop nay Metropolitane himselfe as hath formerly been shewed writing to another Metropolis and commanding to obey the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Deacons should meane any thing else but Bishops by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Thirdly That this Polycarp as in this Epistle he acknowledgeth to have received an Epistle from Ignatius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 You wrote to me and to Ignatius also so he tells them that he had sent them a collection of the same Ignatius's Epistles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Epistles of Ignatius sent to us by him and as many others as we had by us we
and so they are generally rejected by those who mainteine ours as well as their interests I shall onely adde that there is no one word in them concerning Bishops nor were they ever produced by any Prelatist in defence of them Next then say they As for his other twelve Epistles five of them are by invincible arguments as we conceive proved by Vedelius to be written by a Pseudo-Ignatius Eusebius and Hierome make mention but of seven Here also will easily be granted by us whatsoever is demanded For though Vedelius a Divine of Geneva since the casting out of their Bishop and setting up of the new Government might well be lookt on as a partiall arguer or Judge concerning Ignatius's writings yet it being true and by me formerly acknowleged that Eusebius and St. Hierome mention but seven Epistles of his I shall also be ready to yeild to the utmost that Vedelius contended that there be no more then seven Genuine Epistles of Ignatius not that every of the other five can be proved to be suppositious but because the antient testifications of the Church doe not make it so evident that those other five are all his as of the other seven they doe According to this concession it is that in the Dissertations all the Testimonies which are produced in defence of Episcopacy are taken out of those seven Epistles which St. Hierome the Presbyter and onely trusted friend of the Presbyterians doth acknowledge to be his But of these seven also they have somewhat to say in these words And for those seven though with Scultetus Vedelius and Rivetus we doe not renounce them as none of his yet sure we are they are so much adulterated and corrupted that no man can ground any solid Assertion about Episcopacy from Ignatius's workes I hope I shall not now be lookt on as an intemperate asserter of Episcopacy if in this third step also I goe so farre with the Presbyterians as to yeld that I shall rest contented even with those parcells of those seven Epistles which these most rigid censors even Vedelius himselfe which published him at Geneva is content to acknowledge for his If this be allowed me I shall need demand no more The matter is evident any man may consult Vedelius's edition and finde testimonies as cleare for our turne as could be wisht in those parts of those Epistles which he allowes of But for the purging of Ignatius as of all other Antients I suppose the Method which Vedelius used proceeding for the most part by his owne conjecture and phansie is not likely to be the best The one course which any Judicious Man would require or depend on hath been used in this matter since Vedelius had done his best I meane the most antient copies in Europe have been consulted and God's Providence hath been eminently discernable in the result of that inquiry Isaac Vossius a knowne learned Man of that part of the Reforme◠Church which is governed by Presbyters hath met with an Antient Manuscript in the Medicaean library which hath none of the suspected Epistles and is perfectly free from those passages which were formerly among sober Men made matter of suspicion against the Epistles And as in them we finde those very passages intire which the Antients have cited out of them so from them againe all the Testimonies are fetcht which we desire to make use of in this matter So that if ever Ignatius wrote those Epistles which from Polycarpe downward the Antients generally agree that he wrote I have no reason to feare or doubt but his authority and the Testimonies I have brought from him will be of full value and force in this matter When this Copy out of the Medicaean Library was first transcribed by Vossius the greatest enemies of Episcopacy were much taken with it D. Blondel confesses that he presently got a Transcript of it compared it with the Testimonies which the Fathers Polycarpe Irenaeus Origen Eusebius Athanasius Ierome Chrysostome c. had cited out of Ignatius and finding them all to agree with this copy confesseth of himselfe that he was glad for this age of ours that we had now gotten that very copy that 1300. yeares ago Eusebius had used and expected great light from thence But at length this proved not for his turne the Author spake so much of Bishops 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in season and out of season that he set himselfe to form arguments against it which are answer'd at large in the Dissertations But beside this Greeke copy of Vossius's Edition it fell out very opportunely that the most Reverend Archbishop of Armagh about the same time met with some antient Latine copies in England which he thought fit to publish although the Translation were rude and barbarous and that Latine Edition of his was found every where agreeable to that Greeke of Vossius freed as that from all interpolations and by this concurrence of these Providences there is all reason to think that we have at last the Epistles of Ignatius as purely set out as either that of Clemens or Polycarpe or any other antient writing And in this purity it is that we now appeale to it and have the three orders in the Church Bishops Presbyters and Deacons and the Obedience and respects due to them as evidently and irrefragably asserted in very many places as any truth of Scripture can be expected to be After all this most distinctly deduced in the Dissertations they yet proceed we will not say they for our parts trouble the Reader with a large discourse about this subject If he please he may read what the Archbishop of Armagh what Rivet Vedelius and Cooke in his Censura Patrum and what Salmasius and D. Blondel say about it who all of them bring divers arguments to evince the invalidity of these Epistles There is a Doctor that hath undertaken to answer the Objections of the two last But this Doctor should doe well to answer also what the Archbishop of Armagh hath written about these Epistles who proves at large that six of them are nothae the other six mixtae and none of them to be accounted omni ex parte sincerae genuinae who also tells us out of Casaubone that among all the Ecclesiasticall Monuments there are none in which the Papists put more confidence than in Ignatius's Epistles This being the summe of their charge on me in this place that having answer'd all the Arguments of Blondell and Salmasius I hope satisfactorily or else they were very unkinde not to expresse their dislikes of some one answer I have not yet answer'd the Arguments of the Archbishop of Armagh against these Epistles I shall hope that when either I have done that or given competent reason why I need not do it I shall not need to travaile any farther in this Argument yet to omit no paines which they can but thinke of prescribing me I shall take the whole matter of this their last Section before
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
are resolved I must have layen under if I had questioned the Divine Right of Presbyters though they can more than question the Divine Right of Bishops and never have remorse or compunction or dread any charge or â—entence for it Sect. VI. A first confession objected and vindicated Of the Ephesine Presbyters being all the Praelates of Asia Elders Aldermanni AFter these inconveniences briefly touched and almost as briefly by me averted they proceede to take notice in the fourth place of some confessions of mine which the justification of my opinion have forced from me By this method thinking as at length they say to render Episcopacy that is thus maintained or else my way of maintaining it odious and contemptible to all sober and godly and moderate Christians i.e. to all those who for the attaining of those titles good opinion and good words from them shall be invited to contemne or hate those whom they are yet pleased to call their brethren And this I confesse is the most compendious way of confuting that which would not otherwise be confuted What those confessions of mine are which are like to render my assertions so odious I must next take a view and consider with what justice this is said by them The first is that the Ephesine Presbyters whom Paul sent for to Miletus were all the Praelates of Asia To say that the Ephesine Presbyters in their sense of the phrase are Praelates of Asia were I confesse a ridiculous and so if they please a contemptible confession but I have yet been under no such torture from their arguments as should constrain such confession from mee What I say is sufficiently known to be my free opinion and no forced confession such as the necessity of a desperate enterprise might extort from me that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elders of the Church who by summons sent to Ephesus the chiefe Metropolis of all Asia and by that convenient way communicated to other Cities were assembled to Paul at Miletus Act. 20. 17. were as Irenaeus assures mee the Bishops of the other Cities in those parts and not only of the one City of Ephesus What harshnesse there can be in this assertion to be rejected as odious at the first hearing I confesse I divine not That those Cities had Bishops as well as Ephesus cannot be strange or that Paul desired to speake with them before his finall parting And that the Bishops may be called Elders will be as little strange if it be but remembred what is at large shewed in the Dissertations that the word Elder had in the Old Testament denoted dignity and Praefecture in single persons as when Abraham's Oeconomus who was set over his servants is styled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Elder of his house and Ruler of all that was his by Elder and Ruler signifying the same thing and so the Elders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Moabites Num. 22. 7. are the Princes of Moab v. 8. and the Elders of Israel are the heads or Praefects of the principall Families of Israel Exod 6. 14. the Rulers of the people c. 16. 22. the Elders of the Tribes Deut. 31. 28. and all this and much more before they were called into a Councell or Senate to assist Moses as appeares Num 11. 16. And proportionable to this hath been the use of the word among all Nations 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Elder alwayes hath the Rule and all obey him saith Diodorus Siculus and so Seniors in all languages is a title of honour and dignity And peculiarly among us as when Aethelstane the halfe King as he was called of the East Angles was saluted by the title of Aldermannus i.e. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elder of all England and so Aethelwod and Aelwin so in King Aelfred's Lawes c. 34. there is mention Regis Aldermanni and Presbyteri Regis And accordingly Mat. 20. 25. those words of the Princes of the Nations exercising dominion over them are by the Saxons interpreted Ealdoâ—men wealdaqthat hisa ðeodo Elders have dominion over their Nations and Luke 9. 22. the Elders and chief of the Priosts are by them rendred Ealdrum and Ealdormaannum All taking the word Elder for a title of Dignity and praefecture and from that notion of it the Preâ—bytorians are not observed to decline And then finally that the addition of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Church though in the singular cannot make it unfit for these Elders to denote the Bishâ—ps of Asia or neere Ephesus under that Metroplis hath been already accounted for at large And so still I hope they and all godly and moderate brethren need neither hate nor contemne Episcopacy nor the defenders of it upon pretense of this so farre from incommodious or inconvenient confession Section VII A second confession of the Bishops Phil. 1. 1. being Bishops of that whole Province Philippi a Metropolis and a Colony LIke unto this first is the second which they take notice of That the Bishops of Philippi whom S. Paul salutes Ch. 1. were not the Bishops of that City onely but of the whole Province whereas Theophylact saith that Philippi was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a little City subject to the Metropolis of Thessalonica That the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bishops Phil. 1. 1. denotes the Bishops of the Cities of Macedonia which were under this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 chiefe City or Metropolis as S. Luke calls it Acts 16. 12. is already evidenced to be no strange or violent I hope as little odious confession I neede not farther repeat or inlarge on that but beare in good part whatsoever fate is decreed by them to attend that Confession As for the Objection which is here subjoyned and to which they were directed by Dissert 4. c. 10. Sect. 12. they might if they had been so pleased have taken the antidote with the poyson observed and tendred to the Reader the answer which in the five following Sections is solemnely rendred to it and confuted that answer if they had discernd any infirme part in it First then the answer is that that description of Philippi in the argument prefixt to Theophylact's notes on that Epistle was taken out of an antient Geographer and belonged to that City as it was built by Philip having been formerly called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not to the later times under the Romane Empire and that it is no new or strange thing that under the Romans those Cities should become Metropoles which formerly had not been such to which agrees that of the Councell of Chalcedon Can. 12. which mentions 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cities honoured by the imperiall Letters with the name and dignity of Metropoles And indeed the saying of Strabo is of evident truth ordinarily experimented that Provinces were often confounded 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by cause of the Romans distributing them not according to the distributions of Regions or Nations such as the Geographers antiently had